Germans oppose pot legalisation by more than 2:1

[Tender Branson]

Poll results are over 2 to 1 against. My side wins unambiguously.

Do you actually have any substantive reason to oppose Marijuana legalization?

Well, it's a drug ... That counts in the eyes of most.

So is alcohol, a drug I happen to like....but I fail to see a logical reason to allow it while criminalizing a drug that's, at the very worst, not more dangerous.

Yeah, I see it the same way.

[Hifly]

Beautiful. We Germans aren't deluded unlike the idiot libertarians who plague America.

I bet you ancestors were avid Hitler supporters. Scum.

I'm pretty sure Hilfy isn't white.

Solopop- are you willing to place a large sum of money on that?
Yes I am white.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

They need to take a toke and chill out in Germany.

They don't need just a toke, they need facts - like all opponents of legalization.

Anyway, it's good to see America is ahead of most other countries on one issue.

Beautiful. We Germans aren't deluded unlike the idiot libertarians who plague America.

You've yet to explain why you oppose marijuana legalization in any substantive way.

America is more in favor of marijuana legalization because marijuana is a key part of American culture. Marijuana consumption is much higher here than in Europe, we have an active marijuana culture that transcends classic counter-culture vs mainstream divides (there's a negative correlation between marijuana use and income) and the image of the drug is less polarizing now that the memory of the 60s/70s is fading away. This has little to do with America's penchant for libertarianism or Germany's authoritarianism. It's cultural. In the states, jocks, teachers, hipsters, parents, Democrats and Republicans all smoke marijuana. It's been normalized to an astonishing degree.

If you think marijuana legalization is due to the unpopularity of the War on Drugs, I have a bridge to sell you. The punitive aspects of marijuana's illegality have hardly impacted white America outside of inconveniencing them, which is enough to change public opinion.

That's a good explanation, but try not to pressure hifly.  I'm sure he's not willing to deal with all the facts, statistics and studies proving him wrong on this issue.

Hell, I'm willing to bet some if not most legalization opponents know damn well that weed doesn't actually harm a person.  They just like to control people.

[RedSLC]

Beautiful. We Germans aren't deluded unlike the idiot libertarians who plague America.

No, you Germans just haven't had a War on Drugs that shows the absolute folly of criminalizing pot.

^^^^

Also, calling the people on the other side of the issue deluded idiots isn't going to win you any support on this.

Poll results are over 2 to 1 against. My side wins unambiguously.

Not here in America.

[Hifly]

Beautiful. We Germans aren't deluded unlike the idiot libertarians who plague America.

No, you Germans just haven't had a War on Drugs that shows the absolute folly of criminalizing pot.

^^^^

Also, calling the people on the other side of the issue deluded idiots isn't going to win you any support on this.

Poll results are over 2 to 1 against. My side wins unambiguously.

Not here in America.

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

[Cory]

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

Again, do you actually have any substantive arguments against legalization? I somehow doubt it.

[Cassius]

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

Again, do you actually have any substantive arguments against legalization? I somehow doubt it.

1. Marijuana has been shown to cause memory loss as a result of long term use. The depressant affects of it during consumption, lowering one's cognitive capabilities, are not exactly beneficial either.

2. Legalising it would be a red rag to a bull for many people, since it will lose the criminal stigma attached to it, and may well lead to its use becoming more entrenched in society in the way alcohol and tobacco are. Government's would still likely condemn it's usage, but their moral authority on the question would be nonexistent.

3. Legalising it will not magically end the problems of the illegal trade in marijuana. Dealers aren't going to throw their hands up and go 'well our work here is done'. They will find a way of undercutting the price of the legal product (which will likely have a large 'vice' tax imposed upon it).

In short, whilst there are arguments for legalising marijuana, in my view, the status quo (perhaps coupled with less of an emphasis on punishment and more of one on education) is, at this point in time, best.

[Yeahsayyeah]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How would it be a bad thing, that government could not claim to be "moral"?

[RedSLC]

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

Again, do you actually have any substantive arguments against legalization? I somehow doubt it.

1. Marijuana has been shown to cause memory loss as a result of long term use. The depressant affects of it during consumption, lowering one's cognitive capabilities, are not exactly beneficial either.

2. Legalising it would be a red rag to a bull for many people, since it will lose the criminal stigma attached to it, and may well lead to its use becoming more entrenched in society in the way alcohol and tobacco are. Government's would still likely condemn it's usage, but their moral authority on the question would be nonexistent.

3. Legalising it will not magically end the problems of the illegal trade in marijuana. Dealers aren't going to throw their hands up and go 'well our work here is done'. They will find a way of undercutting the price of the legal product (which will likely have a large 'vice' tax imposed upon it).

In short, whilst there are arguments for legalising marijuana, in my view, the status quo (perhaps coupled with less of an emphasis on punishment and more of one on education) is, at this point in time, best.

1. You know what else does all of those things? Alcohol. Yet, despite having legally available alcohol, society still functions.

2.The legal stigma doesn't stop people anyway. If they can find a way to easily get around the laws, they're going to do it regardless. Plus, most habitual pot users really aren't breaking any laws other than the ones against marijuana, and are otherwise law-abiding. Current laws just criminalize people who really aren't hurting anyone.

3. I see this as less of an argument against legalizing weed and more of an argument for making legal weed cheaper.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

Again, do you actually have any substantive arguments against legalization? I somehow doubt it.

1. Marijuana has been shown to cause memory loss as a result of long term use. The depressant affects of it during consumption, lowering one's cognitive capabilities, are not exactly beneficial either.

2. Legalising it would be a red rag to a bull for many people, since it will lose the criminal stigma attached to it, and may well lead to its use becoming more entrenched in society in the way alcohol and tobacco are. Government's would still likely condemn it's usage, but their moral authority on the question would be nonexistent.

3. Legalising it will not magically end the problems of the illegal trade in marijuana. Dealers aren't going to throw their hands up and go 'well our work here is done'. They will find a way of undercutting the price of the legal product (which will likely have a large 'vice' tax imposed upon it).

In short, whilst there are arguments for legalising marijuana, in my view, the status quo (perhaps coupled with less of an emphasis on punishment and more of one on education) is, at this point in time, best.

1. Memory loss typically results only from excessive usage of marijuana.  Meanwhile, the moderate use of substances such as alcohol can cause significant memory loss and depression, but bans on alcohol are, as history has shown, impractical.  That said, THC is not at all poisonous and actually helps restore cells in the body and relieve stress.

2. I don't see why this is a bad thing.  Government isn't moral just because it says it's moral.  While marijuana may be more entrenched in society, it is a much healthier alternative to tobacco and alcohol.

3. That claim is yet to be proven.  Even if the trades don't go away, legalization will deter criminal activity because people will no longer have to resort to illegal means of obtaining pot which, as you will learn in Economics class, increases the price.  I've yet to hear of a single case of the black market selling something for less than it would cost in a free market.

[Franknburger]

Before anybody starts celebrating victories or emerges on socio-psychological analysis of "Germans", let's put this poll into context. I haven't found a documentation on the exact question that has been polled, but press reports suggest that it was along the lines of "Do you support complete legalisation of Marihuana or not"?

There had been a more differentiated poll in 2010, which provided the following options for answering:

Maintain or even tighten the (rather liberal) regulation:                 40%
Maintain formal prohibition, but de-criminalise usage:                   30%
Completely legalise possession (but not trade):                              5%
Legalise it similar to alcohol (taxation, sale only to adults, etc.):    19%
No opinion:                                                                                 7%

If we take options 3 & 4 as more-less corresponding to the legalisation option given in the recent FORSA poll, the support for complete legalisation has gone up from 24% in 2010 to 29% in 2013.

It is also worth noting that, unlike the US, the issue isn't discussed much on the political level. Most importantly, no politician has so far presented an estimate of the additional tax revenue, and the reduction in prosecution cost, that could be obtained by legalisation similar to alcohol. We should be easily talking about 1-2 bn € p.a. here. Once such figures enter the public debate, knowing my fiscally sensitive fellow countrymen, I am quite sure the opinion would change substantially towards liberalisation & taxation.

Oh, did I say the issue isn't discussed much politically? Well, there is one exception - Berln's CDU Senator of Interior in 2012 came out with a proposal to reduce the amount below which possession of Cannabis is tolerated from 15 grams to 6 grams. FORSA, the same pollster that did the current poll, in June 2012 polled Berlin citizens' opinion on that proposal: 47% supported less tolerance, 51% were in favour of Berlin's current liberal regulation or wanted even more liberalisation. 34% of respondents had already consumed Cannabis. There is also an interesting East-West split, with people in East Berlin having less consumption experience (27% vs. 38% West), and in majority favouring stronger prosecution.

[Horus]

Beautiful. We Germans aren't deluded unlike the idiot libertarians who plague America.

I bet you ancestors were avid Hitler supporters. Scum.

I'm pretty sure Hilfy isn't white.

Solopop- are you willing to place a large sum of money on that?
Yes I am white.

I would be.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

3. That claim is yet to be proven.  Even if the trades don't go away, legalization will deter criminal activity because people will no longer have to resort to illegal means of obtaining pot which, as you will learn in Economics class, increases the price.  I've yet to hear of a single case of the black market selling something for less than it would cost in a free market.

Haven't you heard of cigarette smuggling or moonshining?  If you set a sin tax high enough, it will encourage people to engage in the black market to evade the tax.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

3. That claim is yet to be proven.  Even if the trades don't go away, legalization will deter criminal activity because people will no longer have to resort to illegal means of obtaining pot which, as you will learn in Economics class, increases the price.  I've yet to hear of a single case of the black market selling something for less than it would cost in a free market.

Haven't you heard of cigarette smuggling or moonshining?  If you set a sin tax high enough, it will encourage people to engage in the black market to evade the tax.

How often does that happen?  And even if it does, that's a better argument for lowering the tax on marijuana, not outlawing it.

[morgieb]

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

Again, do you actually have any substantive arguments against legalization? I somehow doubt it.

He doesn't have substantive arguments against anything.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

3. That claim is yet to be proven.  Even if the trades don't go away, legalization will deter criminal activity because people will no longer have to resort to illegal means of obtaining pot which, as you will learn in Economics class, increases the price.  I've yet to hear of a single case of the black market selling something for less than it would cost in a free market.

Haven't you heard of cigarette smuggling or moonshining?  If you set a sin tax high enough, it will encourage people to engage in the black market to evade the tax.

How often does that happen?  And even if it does, that's a better argument for lowering the tax on marijuana, not outlawing it.

Moonshining not so much these days.  People's tastes have changed so that those who want whiskey generally prefer it aged rather than raw.  Also the excise taxes on alcohol have not kept up with inflation, so there's not as much incentive.  With our famously low cigarette taxes, there's usually a couple cases a year that make the news of some criminal gang buying them here in quantity to sell in a high tax state.

[Famous Mortimer]

Do you actually have any substantive reason to oppose Marijuana legalization?

[PJ]

Beautiful. We Germans aren't deluded unlike the idiot libertarians who plague America.

No, you Germans just haven't had a War on Drugs that shows the absolute folly of criminalizing pot.

^^^^

Also, calling the people on the other side of the issue deluded idiots isn't going to win you any support on this.

Poll results are over 2 to 1 against. My side wins unambiguously.

Not here in America.

I'm not an American citizen. Where I am a citizen I'm winning.

The fact that your side is "winning" should not be relevant. The fact that the majority of Germans support needlessly jailing people and creating a black market for a nearly harmless drug does not make your side right. Facts proving the success of prohibition would make your side right. Unfortunately for you, those facts do not exist.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just imagine the positions of a 75 year old Southern Baptist... you've got hifly... but give him this, it must be rare to think he's on the winning side of an argument for once.

FYI - I actually don't buy that poll. There's no way the number is that high... the European position on that issue seems to be very much a case of 'why am I supposed to care about this?' Americans are very much more passionate about legalisation due to the ineffective drug war, which only led to massive explosions in the prison population, mostly focused on non-violent offenders. As data shows, drug-use has not gone down... in fact, in some places, the opposite, despite the money, efforts and lives pissed away on this issue. And no matter how much people tut-tut, it doesn't change anything... nothing.

My personal view is soooo apathetic it's not funny. But if I do pick a side on this, I lean toward regulated legalisation.

[Hifly]

Just imagine the positions of a 75 year old Southern Baptist... you've got hifly... but give him this, it must be rare to think he's on the winning side of an argument for once.

Are you insane? One could not think of a worse comparison; apart from on maybe 2 issues I don't see how I would have anything in common with a 75 year old Southern Baptist (I assume a white conservative one). And on the limited issues we would agree on our reasoning would be entirely different. Would you also compare Julia Gillard to a Southern Baptist?
I oppose the casual use of all drugs. I also oppose smoking tobacco and persistent alcohol consumption.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Just imagine the positions of a 75 year old Southern Baptist... you've got hifly... but give him this, it must be rare to think he's on the winning side of an argument for once.

Are you insane? One could not think of a worse comparison; apart from on maybe 2 issues I don't see how I would have anything in common with a 75 year old Southern Baptist (I assume a white conservative one). And on the limited issues we would agree on our reasoning would be entirely different. Would you also compare Julia Gillard to a Southern Baptist?
I oppose the casual use of all drugs. I also oppose smoking tobacco and persistent alcohol consumption.

This isn't a public policy argument. It's the unilateral decree coming from someone with a tyrannical mindset. If large portions of the population want to use relatively benign drugs, who are you to say otherwise? Your opposition to liberalization of drug laws strikes me as an aesthetic judgement rendered as ethics. The same goes for your positions on gay marriage. You offer no explanation behind your preferences that goes beyond saying "I don't want that".

[Horus]

Authoritarian ideologues aren't really known for providing reasons.

[Hifly]

Just imagine the positions of a 75 year old Southern Baptist... you've got hifly... but give him this, it must be rare to think he's on the winning side of an argument for once.

Are you insane? One could not think of a worse comparison; apart from on maybe 2 issues I don't see how I would have anything in common with a 75 year old Southern Baptist (I assume a white conservative one). And on the limited issues we would agree on our reasoning would be entirely different. Would you also compare Julia Gillard to a Southern Baptist?
I oppose the casual use of all drugs. I also oppose smoking tobacco and persistent alcohol consumption.

This isn't a public policy argument. It's the unilateral decree coming from someone with a tyrannical mindset. If large portions of the population want to use relatively benign drugs, who are you to say otherwise? Your opposition to liberalization of drug laws strikes me as an aesthetic judgement rendered as ethics. The same goes for your positions on gay marriage. You offer no explanation behind your preferences that goes beyond saying "I don't want that".

It's called living in a democracy; I am allowed to not support casual drug, tobacco and persistent alcohol use, because all allow for a damaged society. And the vast, vast majority of the German population does not want to allow for casual use of drugs either, as evidenced by this poll.
I've already clearly offered my argument against redefining marriage numerous times.
And my stances against drug, tobacco and alcohol use have clearly not been a hindrance, as my academic achievements are way beyond those of most who lurk this forum.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Just imagine the positions of a 75 year old Southern Baptist... you've got hifly... but give him this, it must be rare to think he's on the winning side of an argument for once.

Are you insane? One could not think of a worse comparison; apart from on maybe 2 issues I don't see how I would have anything in common with a 75 year old Southern Baptist (I assume a white conservative one). And on the limited issues we would agree on our reasoning would be entirely different. Would you also compare Julia Gillard to a Southern Baptist?
I oppose the casual use of all drugs. I also oppose smoking tobacco and persistent alcohol consumption.

This isn't a public policy argument. It's the unilateral decree coming from someone with a tyrannical mindset. If large portions of the population want to use relatively benign drugs, who are you to say otherwise? Your opposition to liberalization of drug laws strikes me as an aesthetic judgement rendered as ethics. The same goes for your positions on gay marriage. You offer no explanation behind your preferences that goes beyond saying "I don't want that".

It's called living in a democracy; I am allowed to not support casual drug, tobacco and persistent alcohol use, because all allow for a damaged society. And the vast, vast majority of the German population does not want to allow for casual use of drugs either, as evidenced by this poll.
I've already clearly offered my argument against redefining marriage numerous times.
And my stances against drug, tobacco and alcohol use have clearly not been a hindrance, as my academic achievements are way beyond those of most who lurk this forum.

But they don't allow for a damaged society, and you have no evidence suggesting otherwise.  What does allow for a damaged society is when the government spends billions of dollars a year jailing people (mostly minorities, even though they use drugs at the same rates as whites) for possession of a plant.  And no, you've never offered a solid argument for either your positions on gay marriage or marijuana legalization.

I have to say, you are one of the worst posters on this forum.  I have never met someone so arrogant and egotistical as you.  You look down on literally everyone who doesn't enjoy the same academic achievements as you.  Well, guess what?  I have two full college scholarships and an above average IQ.  You don't see me bragging about those things, ever, because I have some sense of humility.  And at least I can back my opinions up with facts - something that you've never done, probably because you're afraid of facts undermining your case.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Just imagine the positions of a 75 year old Southern Baptist... you've got hifly... but give him this, it must be rare to think he's on the winning side of an argument for once.

Are you insane? One could not think of a worse comparison; apart from on maybe 2 issues I don't see how I would have anything in common with a 75 year old Southern Baptist (I assume a white conservative one). And on the limited issues we would agree on our reasoning would be entirely different. Would you also compare Julia Gillard to a Southern Baptist?
I oppose the casual use of all drugs. I also oppose smoking tobacco and persistent alcohol consumption.

This isn't a public policy argument. It's the unilateral decree coming from someone with a tyrannical mindset. If large portions of the population want to use relatively benign drugs, who are you to say otherwise? Your opposition to liberalization of drug laws strikes me as an aesthetic judgement rendered as ethics. The same goes for your positions on gay marriage. You offer no explanation behind your preferences that goes beyond saying "I don't want that".

It's called living in a democracy; I am allowed to not support casual drug, tobacco and persistent alcohol use, because all allow for a damaged society. And the vast, vast majority of the German population does not want to allow for casual use of drugs either, as evidenced by this poll.
I've already clearly offered my argument against redefining marriage numerous times.
And my stances against drug, tobacco and alcohol use have clearly not been a hindrance, as my academic achievements are way beyond those of most who lurk this forum.

That's quite the sweeping claim you have there, care to elaborate on the damaging effects of marijuana and alcohol on society along with a forceful policy prescription that would reduce alcohol consumption in a continent that loves to drink ? And no, it's clear that if we adhere to your definition of what "casual drug use" means that Germans love to casually imbibe because they love to drink.

With regards to academics? Sure, I can accept that. Socially? You're left out of the foundational ritual of western civilization: drinking at social occasions. Of course your life is probably already pretty bereft of social activity because you're an arrogant ass.