I'd have to say I completely agree with this.

But...

In order for this system to work and be fair the system has to be infallible so that people who aren't guilty of murder don't get killed for no reason. I believe that perhaps a slight stay of execution might be needed in some cases to give the condemned at least One Chance at a re-trial or for a appeal. Too many times in today's world has someone been sentenced for a crime they didn't commit, even murder. With the advent of DNA evidence and with today's technology, many, Many, individuals have been found Not Guilty after having served years and years behind bars for crimes they didn't in fact commit. If our justice system instantaneously killed the "guilty" then plenty more innocent people would end up being killed/punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Once we have a system that can't be fooled or "bought off" however, I'm all for killing those who are obviously guilty of the most heinous crimes in our society like murder or the rape/murder of a child. I hate knowing that people who should have been put to death years and years ago are Still Alive years after they have been sentenced. Why are we wasting money housing these guilty assholes? Oh that's right....because the State Makes Money off of housing them and getting slave labor out of them. Honestly they should be dead and in the ground instead of being kept alive by the system to line some prison official or politician's pockets.

I just say this: Humans are the most dangerous animals on the planet. Either way...this is a pointless discussion, because we think differently. Nothing is wrong with that.

It's pretty hilarious how demonized Marijuana is in this country. Meanwhile Doctors prescribe FDA approved meth and synthetic heroin to children.   Heck, America's favorite brain altering drug is caffeine. 

I have seen it all now !!

I'm not a user but I'm all for legalizing, or if we can't get that far I'm at least in favor of decriminalizing.

Great Video Jeff

Thanks RavenX i just don't think that it will happen in your lifetime though! there is to much money involved in keeping it the way it is!

You kidding? The market changes every 5 years! xD

(or faster)

sorry, I thought we were talking about DRM (instead of Marijuana)

Many of the pot-smokers I know are libertarians, so I'm not at all surprised. It almost makes me angry that Glenn Beck is taking a rational approach to all this, considering how insane he is about every single other issue.

Well, he can be insane about conservative topics ... cause thats his style. Talking about marijuana is a bit "out of his loop" thus if he acted insane on this he wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone (as opposed to very few people).

The decriminalization is inevitable of marijuana, probably nation wide within my lifetime. Full acceptance is unlikely though and employers will continue to have the discretion of wither to discriminate based on drug use, and will be offered tax incentives to not hire drug users.

   Walmart hired me they had a questionare and I answered yes to legalizing pot and admited use.  They said you just aren't allow to come to work on it. -2000

What state?

Again as states address the issue locally eventually the feds will have to come to grips with the changing sentiment, and either try and re-enforce the fed laws, or make decriminalization nation wide. If the govt could easily and reliably make more money of of legal drugs over the profit off illegal drugs I think they would be moving faster on it. Fact is, on a federal drug charge if they nail the right chain of bad guys in the upper food chain, the govt makes 100's of millions in seized assets per offender. Not to mention the political capital for appearing to have made some difference, and poorly justified ever expanding budgets for such efforts.

Legalizing a substance ends the crime and death.  Look at alcohol.  When booze were illegal, you had people tommy gunning each other over it.  Now, with many drugs includding pot still illegal, you have drug warlords killing each other with AK-47s.

The principle of legalizing is simple..  People need to be individually responsible for what they put into their bodies.  If you take a substance that kills you, its YOUR DAMN FAULT and NO ONE ELSES.  USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.  Now if I want a drug and am willing to accept any and all risks of its use, who am I going to deal with?  A shady dealer like the current drug dealers and drug war lords, or the local "pot mart" with friendly, non AK-47 toting staff?

Actually...you use it at OTHERS' risk....and that is NOT acceptable.

Australia is the first place to have random DRUG testing for motorists.....and the sooner the rest of the world follows the better.

Some drugged-out fucker kills one of my family and I'd off the crack-head AND his family.

Legalizing/decriminalizing substance abuse does NOT make the world a better place.

More people die now from drug and alcohol related issues than EVER died at the hands of Tommy-gun-toting organized crime during prohibition.

I must say, I see your point very well and will have to concede victory to you on this argument.  The only thing I can come up with as a possible counter would be to wonder what the drunk driving death rate was during the prohibition era?  In other words, would some drug crazed fucker kill your family despite their being in place the most restrictive anti-drug laws known to man? How many more people would really flock to drugs if they were made legal?  Do we really expect many people who have never smoked a joint in their lives to suddenly flock to the local "pot-mart" when pot is legalized?  Wouldn't those people who would only ever try drugs once legalized be more responsible citizens to begin with?

Sure....so Australia is clearly using a system that doesn't work.....always good to know that you're right and the Country's medical and traffic experts are wrong.  Thanks for correcting reality.

So your solution is to say...well, gee....let's NOT worry about drug-affected drivers.....they get carte blanche to endanger/kill whom-ever they choose.  Instead we'll just keep testing if some drunk can walk a straight line on the roadside.

The crime isn't the drug-taking....I couldn't give a toss what people insert into their bodies....just as long as they do NOT rob me to pay for their habit....and they do NOT endanger me in ANY WAY what-so-ever.

Kill themselves....that's good....cheap and easy....sooner the better.

Do it NOW....avoid the rush [that's a pun, btw].

Oh....and while we're at it....it's also an offence to even just hold a mobile phone while driving.....whether it is on OR off.

First place on the planet to have compulsory seatbelt wearing as well....death toll dropped by 300 in the first year.

We have 'hoon' laws for eff-wits on the roads as well.... 3 strikes and your car is crushed.

....and as I posted elsewhere....Hamilton was 'lucky' to avoid a criminal record for being an idiot on the roads during the Grand Prix.  Had he copped a record he'd be prohibited from entering the US....which would screw his chances at Indy.   Silly brat should know better.....it would have been a laugh if it had impacted on the status of his Super Licence.

I'm going to have to argue there, it's circumstantial, just as anything else that's dangerous to do. When a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol they only endanger others if they go out and be around others. If I sit here in the privacy of my own home and smoke a joint and play some video games, I'm not hurting any other person because of my drug use. I'm not endangering anyone but maybe some cancer for myself later on down the road after years of accumulative use.

How many people drink and then get in a car when they obviously shouldn't? How many people get meds from doctors, take those meds, and then speed of to go somewhere when technically they're definitely intoxicated? I've never heard of someone dying in a car accident while under the influence of marijuana. I'm Not saying that doesn't happen, I'm sure it has and will probably happen again. When you check the statistical difference between people who died while driving high on weed against the number of people who died while Drinking and Driving or were hit by a drunk driver, Drinking kills more people alone than any other kind of substance abuse related fatality.

If anything drinking needs to be made illegal again, but, they already proved prohibition just didn't work. Besides that almost everyone who's in a position of power in politics is a drinking. Even when alcohol was illegal people in power still had it. It was only really illegal for the common people.

When the war really IS over.....Anyone know where I can get a good deal on some "War Surplus"?

Go Detroit! That's awesome.

Gotta say I agree.

Of course, continuing to punish drinking and driving is a good idea, just because alchohol is widely proven to be a bad idea while driving (and it metabolizes fairly quickly, with a well regulated (tried and true) system for testing which is fair)

That used to be the idea of prisons, back in the 70s.  Today prisons, in the US anyway, are just for warehousing and punishing the convicted.

It's also questionable whether punishment even works--whether criminals consider the consequences before they commit a crime.  Most murders, for example, are crimes of passion, committed on the spur of the moment due to raised emotions.  Bank robbery is an addictive behavior, like cocaine abuse (I was told in college that bank robbery has the highest rate of recidivism).  You have to think, when a person weighs the cost/benefits of armed robbery, why don't they conclude that it would pay more to get a part-time job, knowing that the average take from an armed robbery is under $1000 and the consequence could be 20 years in prison?  There was an article in Freakonomics that showed crack dealers earn, on average, less than minimum wage.

To make progress in the war on crime we have to address lifestyle choices and personal responsibility.  Mold young people into productive citizens.  Separate out those who display dangerous behaviors for special attention.  The compulsory education system provides a framework for doing this.  But, the education system is based on a founding principle of preparing workers for an industrial, assembly-line, society, and it does not differentiate between the creative/artistic principle and the anti-social.

The morals of the US do not differentiate between marijuana use and crack use, where they should see marijuana use as roughly equivalent--or even preferential--to alcohol use.  Marijuana abuse, even--being high all the time--is less destructive than alcohol abuse.  You don't get hungover or irritated or psychotic from smoking too much weed over the weekend.  We need to reevaluate our morality to pull it in line with scientific truth, and then we can work on developing a more moral populace.