Does the concept of fundamental liberty force the legalization of medical marijuana?

  • Freedom of choice

    An individual should have the right to have marijuana. Its less harmful alcohol. Its well documented to have less harmful effects than prescribed medication.
    My understanding is that if alcohol were invented today it would be illegal, whereas marijuana is being made legal in overseas.
    Some people may be allergic to marijuana however some people are also allergic to peanuts and they are legal.

  • My body not yours

    The federal government has no grounds to tell me what to do with my body. I work and pay taxes and in my free time I do what I want. As long as no one is being harmed whats the big deal? Name an instance in history where prohibition worked, and worked effectively.

  • The dea use Marijuana to get into peoples homes and rob them of what ever they want

    I have proof of this.. They steal marijuana and then put it back onto the streets. Police officers use prescription pills and alcohol and are responsible for destroying communities with no regard for families or society or respect of the law. DEA doesn't care about pot they just think they own the industry by robbing everyone they can. They are a hate group with guns and misuse of tax payers dollars. The drug war has ruined society and made people that sell guns and prisons wealthy. The main victim is the planet that is suffering from all the waste and pollution this regime is commercially discarding. WE NEED A SOCIETY NOT JUDGES!!!

  • Uncoersed choice is a component of individual liberty.

    No one should be able to put me in a cage for ingesting anything into my own body. So, I can kill a fetus in my belly, but I can't hurt myself if I choose to? Uncoersed choice is a component of individual liberty. "Ingest this and go to jail, or do not ingest this at all" is a coerced choice. "To ingest, or not to ingest" would constitute a free-choice, to me. It is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to not do drugs, not not the government's. I was my school's program speaker for the DARE program, in elementary school, and now I am a drug felon. People wont stop unless they have the desire to, not because it is illegal, or their school says not to. If anything this would attract the rebels more.

  • Racism fueled the prohibition of marijuana.

    The illegalization of marijuana in the 30s targeted those who used it. At the time, the group who used it consisted of mainly blacks and Mexicans. The 14th amendment states all citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Targeting something because of who supported it is in violation of this amendment.

  • The concept of fundamental liberty does force the legalization of medical marijuana, however, in my opinion, it should not.

    Just as in the days of prohibition, when a drug is banned, people are going to find workarounds to get it. The same is true with marijuana. Legalization is set to come about for the same reason the ban on alcohol was lifted: people want it, so people want it legalized. The only reason for the government to hesitate to do so, in my opinion, is that it requires new law changes and the ramifications for health and transportation are consequential changes that may provide overwhelming challenges ahead.

    Posted by: QuickestLeigh
  • I agree, because our whole concept of liberty is based on the individual, not the mass.

    The use of marijuana for medical reasons has been shown to help, in certain cases when other drugs have not. Several states have already adopted its use, such as Oregon, several years ago, and have had good results. It should be up to the patient and his doctor. That's just one more example of our freedom.

    Posted by: AuspiciousQuincy95
  • One should have the freedom of engaging in an activity that is regarded as moral and harmless. Government has no right to regulate an idea they believe is harmful.

    A person should also have the freedom to engage in an activity that isn't harmful; Marijuana has no physical damage whatsoever. Although some say people can abuse this drug, if legalized, it will certainly be regulated and since it's not addicting, one won't feel as if they need the drug to live. The substance will also be taxed if legalized and considering the economic condition, no one will spend excesive money on marijuana. As one can see regualting marijuana not only invades one's liberites, but can benefit the nation in several ways such as economic gains.

  • I support the legalization of marijuana because nobody has the right to determine what you should put into your own body, and also because it can act as a great medicine for people who need it.

    I believe that legalization of marijuana would benefit a lot of people. Aside from being a legitimate form of medicine to some people, it will also provide an economic boost, as it certainly is a thriving industry and a cash crop. I don't believe that the government should regulate what you put into your body, and I also believe that the majority of citizens do not oppose legalization.

    Posted by: WantingStefan37
  • Legalizing medical marijuana is implied by the concept of fundamental liberty as it is a free will choice.

    If medical marijuana is used for strictly medical reasons then it is a choice that one makes based on their fundamental liberty. Medical marijuana is a drug that is used for medical purposes just like any other drug on the market and it should be our right to use it.

    Posted by: KrisP3r50n
  • No, the concept of fundamental liberty does not force the legalization of marijuana.

    The concept of fundamental liberty does not force the legalization of marijuana, or anything else. What it does push for, by definition, is that these things should not be criminalized, as long as the person obtaining it is not interfering with the safety and liberty of other peoples. Marijuana is a hot topic in this area, and I do not think it should be criminalized to obtain marijuana, unless the person getting it is infringing on other people's liberties.

    Posted by: RavidbardeI
  • Fundamental liberty does not mean that everything is legal or just.

    "Liberty" should not be taken to mean that one may do whatever one wants. Liberty comes with responsibility, in our country. The "freedom" granted by the Constitution is based on the rule of law. The federal government has the right to restrict harmful chemicals, and to determine if any drug or medication is safe and allowable for the general public's consumption.

    Posted by: ConcernedRandy
  • Personal freedoms come inextricably bound to personal responsibility.

    You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, even though you may consider it "free speech". People who would smoke legalized marijuana would find their newly found freedoms subject to the same guidelines that tobacco smokers currently face, as well. With the limits that are put on public smoking and concerns about second-hand tobacco smoke, would the marijuana smokers also go out of their ways to avoid exposing others to second-hand marijuana smoke, too?

    Posted by: QuirkyLenny91
  • Fundamental liberty does not force the legalization of medical marijuana, because marijuana use affects all of society adversely.

    Fundamental liberty is not an adequate argument to force the legalization of medical marijuana. Fundamental liberty does not justify actions that are detrimental to the public, and the law exists to protect citizens. People cannot claim total liberty for all things. And in the case of medical marijuana, the general good outweighs fundamental liberty.

    Posted by: MannP4rk
  • Fundamental liberty does not mean marijuana should be legalized.

    Although choosing to use mariguana is a personal decision, the implications involving the use of such substances impairs the judgement of a person performing specified actions and/or services. Within the responsibilities for our fundamental liberties is the notion that we should not take actions with interfere or could harzardly affect other persons. Therefore, to allow someone to use medical marijuana, or marijuana in particular, is not the question. The real question would be if we can legalize it and make use of it illegal during other, important actions that might jeopardize others.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • The concept of fundamental liberty does not force any type of negative legislation, including that of medical marijuana.

    The idea of fundamental liberty is not the liberty to do what one wants, regardless of the destructiveness of the behavior, but the liberty to pursue goals healthy for the individual and the society. Legalizing a drug such as marijuana needs to be approached with great caution. For example, are there other methods less destructive that would have the same benefit? Do the benefits of marijuana for cancer patients out-weigh the downside - possibly other cancers, lung diseases, destruction of brain cells and the development of twisted thinking and depression. It is not a matter of liberty, but of practicality. To say that it is a matter of fundamental liberty would open the door for the legalization of anything a person wanted, i.e. child pornography.

    Posted by: IindsM3II0w
  • Individuals should not be at liberty to use marijuana. Liberty does not require that every activity be legalized or legitimized.

    Liberty does not require that every activity must be legalized or accepted in society. Government has the responsibility to provide protection and order through the implementation of appropriate legislation. The problem is that many actions have an effect outside of the personal consequences. Government has the responsibility of legislation for the overall public good and sometimes that requires that individual liberty must be limited.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • Marijuana should not be legalized because uninformed consumers won't use it in a responsible manner.

    Marijuana use should not be legalized because people are not adequately educated or informed on the subject. Individuals who smoke marijuana for recreational use don't realize or generally are not aware of the effects of prolonged use, which further complicates the issue. Traffic accidents that were caused by motorists whose judgment was impaired have not significantly decreased with existing laws. Furthermore, the government has never conducted long term studies for the purpose of creating an acceptable legal framework where marijuana use can be effectively controlled and regulated. Therefore, the legalization of marijuana under the current circumstances will only add more problems for the law enforcement community and substantially increase the number of addicts.

    Posted by: I3nnJan
  • Individuals should not be at liberty to use marijuana.

    I know that marijuana is sometimes used for medicinal purposes and for that I do agree. However, individuals should not be at liberty to use it uncontrollably. Marijuana is a drug. Just like any other drug it will impair peoples judgment and diminish their brain capacity. Any drug that can cause this type of damage can be dangerous. If marijuana were to be legalized I would hope that there would be some type of regulation as there is with alcohol. I would hope there would be some type of age requirement and I would expect there to be laws against use in certain circumstances.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.