Does the concept of fundamental liberty force the legalization of medical marijuana?
Yes, the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes should certainly be allowed if it can reduce the suffering of patients with terminal illnesses.
I believe that the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes is certainly a liberty that should be allowed. Since marijuana can help to reduce the suffering of people with terminal illnesses, I see no reason to deny these people the relief it offers. There are already many legal drugs on the market that I consider to be more harmful than legal marijuana.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyFundamental liberty is the idea that what you do is none of the government's business and the government should not involve themselves personal health choices.
I don't think the government should be involved in people's health choices. If someone is suffering, they should be able to seek the avenue that will help ease the pain. If marijuana can help, why should the government get involved? Fundamental liberty means the government shouldn't get in the way of all that.
Posted by: JayceCJust because you disagree with it does not give you the power to say others cannot use it!
Though it does damage motivation, it does absolutely no physical harm whatsoever. It’s a plant for god sake! It does not damage brain cells and it actually reduces the size of lung tumors. In high doses THC promotes neuron growth. If cannabis is illegal then why aren’t more harmful substances like tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs, and fast food illegal too?
Posted by: AnonymousThe 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: QuickestLeighYes, it's usage is too widespread to keep it illegal.
I think people ought to be at liberty to smoke marijuana. It's been around long enough to know that it isn't a ?gateway? drug, it doesn't cause violent behavior, people don't die from smoking it. If it was legal, it's also possible that less people would smoke it, it wouldn't be radical or sneaky, and it would give scientists a legitimate way to do further studies to see if there are any links to cancer from smoking it. It would pave the way for a safer way to smoke.
Posted by: PinkMychOne 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.
Posted by: AnonymousFundamental liberty forces the legalization of medical marijuana because it is a personal freedom to choose what you put in your body.
The concept of fundamental liberty forces the legalization of medical marijuana because this concept reduces restrictions on personal behavior to just actions that negatively affect the liberty of other citizens. Taking marijuana does not impact others if done responsibly, just as responsible beer intake doesn't hurt anyone other than the drinker.
Posted by: 54mP5KryPtoI 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: WantingStefan37Legalizing 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: KrisP3r50nI 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: AuspiciousQuincy95Yes, the benefits of legalization outweigh any negatives.
The government's efforts to ban marijuana have been a massive failure. Prisons are full of marijuana users who have hurt no one. I while I don't advocate marijuana use, there is simply no benefit in banning it. It can be regulated and taxed to bring in revenue for state governments, and to do a better job of keeping it out of the hands of minors.
Posted by: ZxcutieGeorgIndividuals should be free to use marijuana, because it harms no one but the user.
In a free society, government needs a reason to outlaw conduct. That reason is typically that the conduct causes some kind of harm, either to the person engaging in it, or to others. When conduct harms others, it is clear that no one has the right to engage in it. When conduct only harms one's self, however, the government should not interfere. Freedom by definition includes the freedom to engage in any activity that only affects one's self. It is not the province of government to regulate such activity. Marijuana use, much like smoking and alcohol consumption, only affects the user. If the government recognizes the freedom to smoke and drink alcohol, why does it not recognize the freedom to use marijuana?
Posted by: A BassTreat it like beer, at home, and away from people.
Sure, hell, let them have the freedom to do so, however force it to the home so they are to lazy to get out and harm people. It keeps it out of the streets, and in the privacy of peoples homes. So if you regulate in this sense it has a workable nature.
Posted by: BearI firmly believe that marijuana should be legalized. The right of an individual to decide what is acceptable for themselves is the foundation of liberty.
Marijuana use, for individuals, is a decision that has less affect on the lives of others than the decision to drive a car. The negative effects of marijuana are limited almost exclusively to the user, and the societal effects are not mitigated by the fact that it is illegal. Many of the negative societal affects are directly related to the fact that marijuana is illegal. We hear about the crime rate associated with marijuana use. Take away every arrest based solely on possession, and that crime rate is not very high at all. We hear about the impact of driving while using marijuana. Driving under the influence of chemicals is already illegal, that would not change just because use was legal. We hear about the affect marijuana has on the users, but that is a matter of personal choice, and society does not have the right to make that choice for an individual, any more than it has the right to decide whether or not someone sky dives or plays professional football.
Posted by: TwistLoweMarijuana prohibition flies in the face of the concept of personal liberty and responsibility.
Marijuana prohibition is a violation of our rights as citizens. Marijuana has not ever been recorded to cause poisoning like alcohol. Marijuana has not recorded cases of violence like alcohol. However, alcohol is completely legal! If alcohol can be legal, then why can't marijuana? There is not reason that is so great as to ban it when looking at these examples and when weighted against the fundamental freedom of the citizen to do what they wish with the plants that grow on this green earth.
Posted by: StormGra
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: RavidbardeIMarijuana 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: I3nnJanPersonal 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: QuirkyLenny91Fundamental 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 CummingsIndividuals 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: w00tboycomicFundamental 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: MannP4rkIndividuals 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: TasticBranFundamental 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: ConcernedRandyThe 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