The parallels the situation has with the prohibition era is what makes it even more hillarious

Republicans torture and kill people because they hate them?

I think there is some validation for some drug laws, in theory. Maybe if we allowed ourselves complete liberty when it comes to drugs some kind of stabilization will take place.

One example: Smoking. Less people are smoking now. A highly addictive drug, and people are smoking it less? Yes. That is what's happening. Why? Education. Does everyone get education? No. Does smoking tend to perpetuate itself? Yes. In lower IQ groups.

What about child birth? Having a child while on PCP (or even Pot mind you)? Well, hell... a few million of those, and you may want to make it a crime. And when you make it a crime, you make it a law. When you make it a law, you are, in some effect reducing liberty. But you also may be enhancing societal functionality. Group think!

If you ask me, I err on the side of freedom, but in extreme cases, the strong stuff really COULD be a danger to us all.

So the reason why people aren't having babies on PCP is because of the law itself? OK M8 :)))

Are you suggesting that is MY contention? Let me reiterate, then...

Read slowly:

-----

Maybe if we allowed ourselves complete liberty when it comes to drugs some kind of stabilization will take place.

One example: Smoking. Less people are smoking now.

-----

The above is one example of the lessening of specific drug use WITHOUT a law needed.

The other examples are my presumed objections by one person or another.

Also, I'm not inclined to get too specific. Just adding some short commentary. We haven't talked about markets, prices and other factors having an effect on the smoking observation, which actually is still being debated.

I guess I would LIKE to think of drugs as a Free Market. The good ones which can be used, enjoyed and don't destroy your life, will foster . The bad ones, will die out (e.g the decline of smoking and the effect of "stress relief" not being good enough to counter the bads). I think we should have that decision to make most of the time, if not all of the time.

Alcohol vs Smoking. In a "success" war, Alcohol is clearly winning, as it appears to have more benefits, minus the costs, money or otherwise.

My Drug effect knowledge is almost zero. So I can't make any concrete statements about which drugs in particular I may be against, if any at all.

smoking should be banned
hate when fags smoke near me


also: slow walkers & people who use over-sized umbrellas should be killed

explain the chain smoking college student demographic

trying to claim that only stupid people smoke is utterly retarded

What you mean paying 1000's of pounds a year to put stupid little things in your mouth that....

A) You can't explain one positive use for other than making you feel better, which is not valid because it only makes you feel better from your initial dependency.

B) Smelling of smoke.

C) Killing other people who have to breath it in and around you.

D) Making something which is so obviously bad for you and other people more socially acceptable?

Someone who does that day in day is hardly Einstein.

the effects of secondhand smoke is negligible outdoors. it only "kills you" in an unventilated room and even then the effects have been greatly exagerrated

smoking indoors in public places is banned basically everywhere in the US now, i don't know about your side of the pond, though

basically the way i see it is this:

you don't like smoking. that's fine.
i like smoking. that's also fine.
however anti-smokers like you go rattling on about how much you hate it ALL FUCKING DAY and it gets really unnerving. how about i keep smoking, and you keep not smoking, and we'll call it a day? there are far more productive moral crusades to go on than this one.

being jamerio is pretty fucking bad for you too, perhaps we should start campaigning against that.

"Does smoking tend to perpetuate itself? Yes. In lower IQ groups."

n1

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2009/...ter-person

You can buy guns over-the-counter, but not drugs. According to the dumbest among us, security is worth the danger (wtf?), but freedom is not. That's why the United States is called the 'land of the free, home of the brave'. It is also why Republicans hate libertarians, because of the Statue of Liberty (which was given to us by France, something else they hate).

I'm sure Republican thinking gives any intelligent person a headache. Republicans (like many religious people), do not think, they believe. Obviously, anyone who does not think is a moron or an animal.

Legal drugs are less dangerous than illegal. When they are illegal, you get illegal industries, which have no accountability and do not follow any laws. You get people like Al Capone and his gang. And with drugs, it can be even worse. Drugs are made through chemistry. When you buy them on the street, they could be cut with anything. You don't know the dosage, you don't know the potency, you don't know exactly what you're getting. Legal drugs, on the other hand, would come with directions and safety warnings and exact ingredients, potencies and dosages. There would likely also be some public education, aside from what you find on the label.

Christianity (which makes up most of the Republican party), is a group of roughly 1 billion people who believe Moses parted the Red Sea with a magic spell. And Jesus was just like Harry Potter, using his wizardry to walk on water and turn water to wine.

It's the year 2009, people... maybe it's time to take your heads out of your asses?

As a kid, look at how nice I was. Today, I have to kill everyone. That's the way of the world. Parents mislead children. They teach their offspring to expect a world which does not exist. It is a cruel practice designed to satisfy parental cowardice. When children grow up, they are unprepared for the horrid reality waiting to engulf them. Firstly, they teach you about Santa Claus, then you find out Santa Claus is a lie. Secondly, they teach you about Jesus, then you find out Jesus is a lie. Thirdly, they teach you about sex and drugs. They tell you to be abstinent, but then you learn how parents are assholes who don't know anymore than a hole in the ground. Then you learn, you must figure things out for yourself, because your parents are almost certainly as ignorant as everyone else.

Just say no? Why? They don't even give a reason. As is clear, to anyone who has studied drugs, the anti-drug people are the opposite of right. Drugs are tools, nothing more. Tools of the mind, rather than tools of the body (mental rather than something physical like a spoon). Drugs are the next stage of human development. We have survived because of tools. Now these religious people, and other ignorants, want to ban tools. These people must be seeking human extinction. Instead of abstinence, we should learn everything, and thus master what makes us survive.

A. Drugs can be used without anyone getting hurt.
B. It is your God-given right to hurt yourself.
C. Hurting yourself does not necessarily hurt anyone else.
D. Through proper evolution, drug-use will cause less and less harm.

There should be no drug abstinence. Sex is for reproduction, we've been doing it for billions of years, there is no need to practice. Drugs, on the other hand, do require practice and have all sorts of different uses. When people talk about competing economies, drugs could play a major role. Many drugs 'enhance performance'. Other drugs can be therapeutic. Addictive drugs are only addictive if used too frequently (and if the user has no self-control). And if drugs were legal, over-dosing would be virtually non-existent.

Drug opponents would likely respond to these arguments with nothing more than half-truths and other propaganda's.

theres buisinezz interests behind it o_O

how on earth do you have the energy to post this

This isn't really about whether or not you should use drugs. This is about whether you should decide for yourself to use or not use drugs, or should someone else decide for you. It is a matter of law, not of medicine.

Clearly, every capable person should make their own decisions. It is the very spirit of Democracy to decide for yourself. When other people make decisions for you, you are living in a dictatorship.

People do not understand law and politics. When you outlaw something, it usually means people will go to prison. You, the taxpayers/voters, are responsible for those imprisonments and you must pay for them. Government has one purpose - survival. Without a nation, you will be helpless against nations. Domestic policy is another matter. Government does not need to protect people from people. Government only needs to protect people from nations. Unless it is necessary, you should never support additional domestic law. More law = less liberty.

Morality, meaning sin and virtue, is an establishment of religion, and is therefore un-Constitutional. Morality is also un-wise and un-scientific. It accounts to no degree of evolution. Most people only think within the limits of their short-lives. They should be thinking of their entire lineage, and of the species to which their lineage will inevitably be inextricably attached.

Should you use drugs? It depends on the individual. Some people should, some should not. Which is further reason to legalize drugs. In the case of drugs, the bias created by law should not exist.

Christians are pathetic. They don't make their own decisions. The Bible makes all their decisions for them, and they want the Bible to make your decisions for you. The Bible is nothing more than an ancient version of Harry Potter. The 20th century will be known as the time Christians attempted to hijack the United States. They have installed many laws here which are blatantly un-Constitutional. Now we have to correct them. And another thing, Christians, stop burying people in caskets. If you keep going with that idiotic, unnatural practice, we will waste resources, natural recycling will fail to occur, and eventually, the entire world will be a graveyard.

Christians, abortion is good for a nation and a family: it means quality over quantity, and what matters family-wise is the lineage remains intact (quality lineage is better than quantity).

Homosexuality is good, as it minimizes over-population.

Consensual sex is perfectly fine. It is not your decision or the decision of Harry Potter to tell others whether or not to have consensual sex, regardless of age or gender.

Gay marriage is also none of your business. It should not be the business of the public. State marriage is only more church-state integration, more oppression, and more unnecessary government.

Drugs are enhancers. They enhance recreation, performance, therapy and probably whatever else. What has democracy become when one half of the people vote to oppress the other half?

I hate religion and I make my own choices.

Drugs should remain banned because the world does not need any more of an excuse to become even more retarded.
Its actually one of the few good choices that have been made, along with the smoking ban.
I don't care if you can point me to productive drug users, I can point you to a lot more who are not purely because of the effects the drugs have had.

If you need to take drugs on a consistent basis then might I suggest going to see a doctor/therapist or obtaining a more interesting life to free you of whatever it is that makes you want to relax to that degree.

Why do you care about people being worthless burn-outs? More pussy and better jobs for us imo

I wish you weren't serious.

You are apparently retarded without the use of drugs!

Most of these awful laws come from Republicans, done over the last 40 years. Christianity sort of stole any good the party had. As everyone should know, 'God' is the original dictator.

Liberals, Democrats, whatever, have their share of problems too. They 'care' so much about everyone, but their ways of helping accomplish the opposite. For example, if they really wanted to help homeless people, they would make it legal to kill the homeless. Without question, that would cause homeless people to evolve. And it would make everyone else do everything they can to not become homeless.

Drugs should be legalized. Sex, consensual or trick, is a matter for individuals, their friends and their families, not for government. Marriage is the same. I personally have nothing against polygamy. It could conceivably help society. If a successful person has lots of wives, and lots of children, the society gains more successful people. It is false to say everyone is 'created' equal.

Much of the problem with legislation comes from discrimination. When everyone is forced into a uniform structure, and that structure fails, everyone dies. When people make their own decisions, some of them will die, but most will live and evolve.

I should add, the Republican party is ruined. Republicans who want to have a political future should switch to the Libertarian party.

The fact is, people are different. Discrimination laws do not account for differences. Furthermore, evolution requires you to make your own individual mistakes.

When most people think of evolution, all they think about is did we come from lower life-forms, or were we created in our current form, like the ancient Harry Potter suggests? This truth has already been established, for anyone intelligent and non-deluded enough to comprehend. What people need to know now, is how a creature goes from 'lower' life-form to current. We know roughly why the turtle developed its shell, but why did it not develop a different form of defense? And no, we did not come from monkeys. Humans have always been humans, but we were at some point even more similar to primates than we are today.

Evolution is part of everything we do. It is of critical importance people understand how it functions.

And Obama needs to stop believing things. A President cannot afford to believe, a President must know.

drugs should be allowed imo because they grow in nature. we can't defeat NATURE.

-drugs +marijuana

Don't forget psychedelics such as salvia divinorum and psilocybin mushrooms.

yeah, so then if there's earth quake, don't try to fear, just let it kill you. You can't defeat nature.

that's the spirit !

He never said you should just let nature defeat you. Poor logic.

as everyone says "smoking kills", soz...

then if that's really true, you have to fear drugs or /ignore.

anyway drugs can be good, depends on the use

sif i care :D

Well, the tobacco leaf contains carcinogens, but there are plenty of plants out there that people don't inhale or consume that are harmful to the body anyways.

The harmful effects of marijuana only originate from the inhalation of carbon from burning the leaf. This can easily be avoided with the use of vaporizers, which are designed to heat up just enough so that the THC is sublimated but the leaf isn't burnt.

Psilocybin mushrooms are also "less toxic than aspirin."

I weep for the state of mankind when this amount of hatred is spewed with such vitriol. This pseudo intellectual bullshit makes me realize how far we have yet to go in the fight against ignorance.

Seriously, kid, please seek professional help. You're obviously a very angry, very disturbed, child.

If one side can't fight back, it is not a war. Drugs alone are inanimate objects. They cannot possibly fight back. Drug-users have Constitutional rights. And while some people are pathetic and should not use drugs, there is no reason to outlaw drugs for everyone, as some people can use drugs perfectly responsibly.

Do you know why so many American laws are screwed? It's because the bulk of our population have the intellectual capacity of children. They're not morons, per se. Most of them are religious, or once-removed religious, but even some scientists constantly question why things shouldn't work based on their own personal fantasies.

Look, mother-fuckers, you have to legislate based on the way things are. In reality, your personal fantasies have no bearing. Things will never be the way you want them to be. Your wants are not realistic. Your 'shoulds' and 'should-nots' are also unrealistic. The sooner you accept reality, the better off we will all be (including your entire line of descendency for the next infinity amount of years).

The reality of these laws is they turn good citizens to bad and bad to worse. Laws create bias, they do not eliminate. In some cases, laws only make the problem worse.

A good citizen pays their taxes and abides by legitimate law. When government punishes a person based on illegitimate law, that person develops resentment towards their government. They will then be less willing to pay taxes and abide by law, legitimate or otherwise. They will also have developed the skills and contacts necessary to successfully break laws and evade taxes.

Murder is a case of legitimate law. We do not want our good citizens killed. Rape or robbery, also legitimate, because we don't want good citizens turning bad or good tax-dollars being stolen. Statutory rape, of course, is nonsense. It isn't rape, and it has no bearing on abiding by legitimate law or paying taxes. Sexual decisions are a private matter and should never be otherwise.

As long as taxes are being paid and legitimate law is followed, nothing else matters. Prostitution, gay-marriage, drug-use, consensual sex with the teenage daughter of a redneck asshole, whatever it might be. It has no bearing on the state of the nation. All that should matter to the nation, to the government, is that taxes be paid and legitimate law be followed. Without taxes and legitimate law, the government cannot properly protect people from nations. All of your other problems are not matters for government. They can be handled through private institutions, friends and family, or simply through personal ingenuity.

Furthermore, it is the duty of every good citizen to ensure laws are legitimate.

Oh yes... legitimate law is very simple. There are only two types of legitimate law: tax-law and national-security law. Cannot have national security without money (taxes). There are other laws which are also part of national security but have nothing to do with taxes (such as murder-law; if a bunch of idiots keep killing all your good citizens, your nation will not last long).

Maybe the government should become more creative with its punishments? It basically just fines people or puts them in prison. The Constitution doesn't even mention prison, it says 'punishment'.

ahahah Jonesy :D

pretty fun read :D

Prison is a lot of what's wrong with government. When an idiot commits a crime, the government makes everyone, including law-abiding tax-payers, pay for the crime. Prisons cost tax-dollars. Clearly, only the person who breaks the law should pay for the crime.

In the case of drugs, most users are perfectly responsible. There is no reason to make everyone pay because a few jackasses cannot use drugs safely.

Because 'national security' is the only real purpose of government, all other government and all other law should be abolished. The more you put into frivolous government, the less secure your nation. People can compete with each other, but people cannot compete with nations. It takes a nation to compete with nations. To have a nation, you must have a government (to form the cohesion and organization necessary, through economic and military means).

Responsible drug-use has no ill-effect on the economy. If anything, the opposite is true. If illegal drugs were legalized, the drug industry would be taxed and the people wouldn't spend tax-dollars enforcing drug laws and punishing the breakers of drug-laws. Performance enhancing drugs would further strengthen the economy. Other kinds of drugs have no ill-effect on the military or the economy, therefore should not be illegal.

National security is a two-fold process. The people must be secure from domestic threats (government) and foreign threats. Terrorism is not a legitimate threat, mainly because terrorists would never use WMD's. The point of terrorism is to scare (hence the name 'terror'-ism). The worst you will get with terrorism is a small-scale explosion or a murder here or there. 9/11 was an exception, only because the buildings went down (which is still an unsolved case). If not for that 'freak-of-nature' occurrence, it would have been a perfectly standard terrorism incident (damage/fear wise).

The news is such shit. The news tells you, 'this over here is very important, you should pay attention so you will feel important'. Of course, the very next day, they're pointing your attention towards something completely different. What happened to that ultra-important issue of yesterday? It disappeared, like the insignificance it truly was.

Instead of watching the news, just look around and decide for yourself what's important. Decide for yourself what needs to be changed or fixed, or whatever it might be. United States citizens have every Constitutional right to petition government for a redress of grievances. You do not need the news to tell you what your grievances are. You should be demanding from the news, not waiting for them to tell you what you need.

Terrorists kill people. Vaginas have aids.

Cock Cheney, or Dick, or whatever Penis name he has is living in a cold-war era. He's still fighting communist Russia, with their suitcase nukes.

Environmental issues are still questionable. Should government intervene? If the public demand a solution, corporations will be glad to supply.

In all the years the cold-war waged, we never resorted to torture or military commissions. Apparently, the old minds, constructed almost exclusively during the cold-war era, now think 'terrorists' are more powerful, more capable, and more willing to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the United States and use it to destroy an American city, than the whole of the Soviet Union, which had roughly 15,000 nuclear weapons at their disposal (Which Russia now retains exclusively).

Yeah....... maybe these old cooters have old-brains, which can only think in old-ways. Condoleezza Rice is alright. Dicky Chains is too damn old. Bush is a fucking cheerleading fascist. While none of this has any direct relation to drug-laws, it is indicative of a state of affairs which could lead to absurd, un-Constitutional, irrational, tyrannical, self-destructive, horrid laws.

Everyone has their own different set of morals. Their own different ideas of 'right and wrong'. It is exactly like religion. There are thousands of religions, and as many sets of morals. In the United States, the Constitution forbids the majority religion from dictating policy. Morality should be no different. Government cannot possibly cater equally to every religion, nor to every set of morals. Which means, whichever religion, or set of morals, becomes politically dominant will oppress everything else.

A nation gains no tactical advantage through moral legislation. Instead, there is oppression, an open door for unscrupulous, ambitious political opportunists, and the prevention of maturity. You can call the world cruel, or whatever... it is what it is. The more you deny reality, or try to change what cannot be changed, the more damage you do to yourself, your nation, your species and your descendants. People need to grow up and realize, there are tricksters out there. There are 'bad' people (as you, in your morality, might call them). An animal would not make any such allegation, or ask the government to outlaw 'evil-doers', but instead would merely protect themselves. In this way, animals are smarter than humans. They continue to evolve, as nature intended, while humanity stupifies itself with tales of fantasy, designed merely to initiate pleasurable sensations. Humans give themselves placebo's, creating delusions that make them think if something is outlawed, it will cease to exist. They become dependent on laws, helpless without them... like babies. When law fails to protect them, they have no means of protecting themselves. They are surprised to find the law being broken, and too shocked and inept for any appropriate action to occur.

When people have always lived with a law, it is difficult to change. People know what it's like living with drug laws. Fear of the unknown can be a powerful force. Let's face it... most people are cowards. They're not like the brave pioneers who colonized this nation. Those people did not know what they would find, but they went anyway. Those colonists are a lot like drug-users. Most drug-users do not know what they will find. There isn't a great deal of objective information and the information does not find you. They do it anyway, even though they fear the unknown, and also fear imprisonment (something our original colonists did not need to fear).

Most people are such cowards, they do everything to abuse public assistance. And who pays for these abuses? The brave people who used to call this place home. When will the American people regain their freedom?

We should start trading citizens. If we've managed to spawn communists, socialists and fascists, why not trade them to communist, socialist or fascist nations? In exchange, those nations could send us people who want freedom (real freedom, not the Republican kind - freedom for them and slavery for everyone else).

Works out better in every way... less rebellion, less usurpation, less general trouble, and more of what everyone wants.

In the United States, freedom itself has become immoral. Freedom - the ability to make one's own choices - cannot possibly be moral if the choices you make are different from the choices 'God' requires you to make. Atheists are only slightly different: they determine 'morality' without reading a Bible, but are still equally interested in outlawing freedom... because your choices are immoral, as the group has determined.

Government has a purpose. From that purpose, it should never deviate. The more deviation, the less effectiveness. Dictating over everyone's personal lives is not the purpose of government. People can protect themselves from most things. People need to stop being babies, and learn how to live without crying to their mommy and daddy (government), whenever something slightly unpleasant occurs.

People do not understand government. For example, look at the issue of gay-marriage. Most people would argue gay-marriage should be legal or illegal. But... the real issue has nothing to do with either (in the United States, anyway). The lesson to be learned, by the 1st amendment (Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.), is that often when you separate things from government, you then have freedom. Marriage and State should be separated. The real issue on gay-marriage is why government regulates marriage. Why are these two things integrated? Does government even have the legitimate authority to regulate marriage? Article 1, Section 8 clearly states the powers of Congress. Do you see anywhere in that section granting Congress the power to regulate marriage? If not, Congress cannot legally regulate marriage. It is a simple proposition.

Everything reasonable should be separated from the state. I'm always amazed by the fact our founders, people from hundreds of years ago, understood government better than people today. There is a distinct lack of evolution taking place. I suppose it's understandable though... since all those television shows are so important they consume everyone's lives. No time for government studies.

When the Constitution is restored, Freedom will be restored. The Constitution will not be restored until the general population bothers to learn the Constitution.

i fuckin smoke weed every day, and when the fuckin cops take it i have to smoke SPICE

wtf is drugs exactly

You can determine the advancement of a culture by the quality of porn it produces. You can determine the intelligence of a culture by the amount of present religion. Every intelligent person knows religion is false.

People grow up forming assumptions about government. Unfortunately for everyone, those assumptions are rarely corrected by the people who should correct them. In some cases, the assumptions are never corrected. Some people think government is, and should be, part of everything. Like a referee for the game of life. Those people are wrong. Government should be the most non-existent entity possible. We have government out of necessity, and for no other reason. Government is not here to provide comforts. Government is not here to 'right the wrongs'. You need government because you need a military. You need an economy to have a military. You need civilians to have an economy. Government regulates commerce to ensure the military has what it needs. Beyond that, government has no valid purpose.

Republicans often claim they want government out of their lives. When they say this, they are only speaking economically. They want government in your personal life. They want government in your sex life, in your drug life, in your reproductive life, in your married life, in your 'moral' life. They want government to make all of your personal decisions for you and none of your economic decisions. They have it entirely backwards, owing to the fact government is only necessary to the extent the military functions to repel invaders and suppress insurrection. The 2nd amendment merely makes defense cheaper.

It is true, government itself can be a threat (which further makes the Republican way unacceptable). The more personal power people have, the more able they are to quell any potential native-government threat. The exclusive purpose of the Constitution is to fight the threat of government. It is meant to give people the tools they need. If you read through the Amendments, you can see people lost their way. The early amendments were all to the intended purpose. Today, some Congressional laws are so far from being Constitutional, it is like the Constitution does not even exist. The Judicial branch, whose main purpose is to ensure Congressional laws are Constitutional, seems at times completely unaware of Constitutional law. As if Judges are merely vagrants, wandering in from the streets, with no prior knowledge of the job they have somehow been given.

The system has more than 'fallen apart at the seams'. Gross ignorance of the Constitution and of government has all but shredded entire portions of our nation's fabric. How can Democracy be maintained when the people have no understanding of their government? They don't even have knowledge. You could walk up to a random person on the street, a voter, and they would tell you they have never even glanced at the Constitution. Ask them to recite even one Amendment, which only requires memorization, and they could not manage even the shortest one. If you give voting rights to 150 million squirrels, what do you think will happen?

The drug-laws, of course, are part of a larger problem. Sometimes the best way to solve a puzzle is to start at the end and work your way to the beginning.

wow jonesy has written a book with this thread.

The 'nanny state' must go. I understand how mommy and daddy are the first authority figures we deal with. Maybe some kind of subconscious natural progression causes government to fulfill the mommy and daddy roles for adults. It's a bunch of crap though... government forcing you at gunpoint to eat vegetables, because other foods are 'bad for you'.

The American people only tolerate government because it is necessary. In a nation with the right to bear arms, i'd have to wonder what politicians are thinking when they install unnecessary provisions.

just ... wow.

To understand government, you must go back to its first incarnations. In the beginning, why did governments form? It was not for moral reasons, or religious. It was for survival. Maybe the 1st government was aggressive. Other groups of people learned quickly, to defend themselves against the new threat, they would need their own versions of government.

No sane person would go to a shoe store if they want to buy a shirt. Why then do people go to government to acquire anything their little minds desire? Government is only here to provide shoes. If you demand something, you know that thing is in demand. If there is no supplier, you should yourself become the supplier.

If you support current marijuana laws, you have no valid grounds to discuss justice. How is it justice to imprison someone, or make it more difficult for them to live their lives the way they choose, when their actions in no way damage the effectiveness of the nation or excessively impact the people who retain citizenship? Religious people negatively impact my life, but i'm not suggesting we outlaw religion. As long as they keep the church and state separated, the impact is tolerable.

Before you moralists attack like wasps, let me make something clear. The American version of justice has nothing to do with morality. It is about trueness, correctness, reason and the judicial process.

Stealing $20 here or there does not have excessive impact, except when multiplied by 1 million. An individual smoking marijuana has no excessive impact, even when multiplied by a million. Some people are irresponsible. They should not use any substances. To outlaw substance use for everyone, because some are irresponsible, is what we call discrimination. If it is excessive, it should probably be illegal. If moderate, some regulation may be in order. If mild, it should be legal and unregulated.