NationStates Jolt Archive


Sex Lies and Videotape

30-12-2003, 22:47
Ok now that I have your attention I would like to discuss the marijuana prohibition issue.

Now stop rolling your eyes and get your finger off of the back button. I know you have heard it all before right? Please indulge me for a moment and read on.

This prohibition has been debated many times in these forums and yet it seems to me that fundamental points are being missed. The pro-prohibiton side shouts "It destroys your brains" while the anti-prohibition croud shout "Medicinal uses" and everything in between gets ignored.

First thing I would like to address is why this is a UN issue. I initially belived it to be an issue for the individual nations to decide but then I asked myself why do we have a UN? To me the UN is here to provide the basic rights that all people should have regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation or nationality. Basic human rights issues. I believe that prohibition fits into that category. It is each individuals right, in my humble opinion, to inject any substance into their own body that they want and therefore it becomes a UN issue.

Second thing is that in order to have a functional debate we need to have everyone understand the difference between fact and opinion. When making a statement like "It is a fact that all pot smokers are brain dead hippies" you are not constructively contributing. Statements such as that are your opinions and should be expressed that way.

What I am going to share today is mainly my opinion. I hope I can express it in such a way as to once and for all persuade enough of you that we can have important legislation passed that will end the prohibition on marijuana once and for all.

There are more then 20 million Americans that smoke marijuana, I do not have figures for the rest of the world but I imagine that they are comperable. Contrary to the "facts" I have seen on these boards they are not all brain dead ex-hippies. I have known enough Doctors, nurses, judges, lawyers, police officers and other professionals that smoke to know that not everyone that smokes is "brain dead". I have also met enough Cheech and Chong types to realize that they exist as well. It is my opinion that smoking has little if anything to do with it and that it is more about who the person is as an individual. It is a FACT that nobody knows how many smokers are intelligent responsible people and how many can't tie their own shoes so let's avoid stereotypes shall we?

A little history

Marijuana, or Hemp, was a major industry in the United States at one point and time. Popular Science magazine had called it "The million dollar crop" back at the time that a harvesting machine for the plant was about to be invented. Unfortunately at the time many influential people with a lot of money were going to be hit in the wallet as a result and decided that was unacceptable. The gentlemen that produced "reefer madness" and other samples of yellow journalism was actually a Secretary of State that owned 2 major newspapers at the time. It was very easy for him to broadcast the "Marijuana is evil" campaign and brainwash an entire society. His nephew was appointed by Hoover to lead a anti-drug organization that has since evolved into the DEA.

So why were these folks so afraid of a fast effective way to cultivate the help plant? Well that answer is found in it's uses:

Marijauna crops can be cultivated for pulp to make paper 4 times a year off one acre of ground. Trees can be cultivated about every 20 years. This makes the hemp plant 800 times as effective as a source for paper. Obviously the timber industry would not like to see it legalized.

Marijuana reduces nausea and stimulates appitite. This makes it a viable treatment for those suffering from AIDS or the rigors of chemotherapy. This is a FACT that cannot be refuted. Because of the bans on research we have barely tapped it's potential for medicinal uses. If marijuana could be use instead of many modern medicines would it not make sense that major pharmecutical companies such as DuPont would be opposed to it's legalization?

The fibers from the Hemp plant make more durable fabrics then cotten so the textile industry opposes it's legaliztion.

The intoxicating effect from smoking is less addictive then cigarettes and more manageable then alcohol so those industries both support the prohibition.

Are we seeing the trend yet? This is not about the harmful effects of marijuana, it is about who would lose money. Are you willing to destroy our forests, make terminally ill patients suffer unessasarily, prohibit research into new and improved medication, give a safer alternative to recreational users and deny who knows how many other benefits all to further line the wallets of major corporations?

The War on Drugs is not winning nor will it ever win. The war is costing the tax payers millions, tying up our police force and over crouding our prisons. I do not care if you smoke or not, if you think it should be legal or not, you cannot provide one shred of evidence that shows that the War is making the usage of marijuana diminish in the world. It cannot and willnot ever work. Prohibition never does.

One of my favorite arguments against the legalization of marijuana is that it leads to harder drugs. At least those that say that have the intelligence to see that not all drugs are equal. What they are not seeing is that by lumping them all into one category "illegal drugs" you are putting them all into the same black market. Marijuana can act as a gateway drug but only because the curious cat that goes to purchase some has to buy it from the same guy that is selling crack and heroin. Those that say cannot tell the difference between marijuana and heroin are too close minded to even address.

So lets recap:

Public lied to and marijuana prohibition goes into effect.

Fat Cat corporations that stand to lose millions continue to disinform the public about the plant.

Benefits:
Medicinal Uses
Textile Uses
Safer recreational uses
Oil Uses (Didnt go into that one but they are their as well)
Plastic uses (again uses are their)
Saves Enviroment
Saves taxation for war
Lightens burden on police so they can pursue violent crimes (you know rape, murder, assault..etc)
Frees up jail space (another money saver for the tax payer)

Will everyone use it responsibly? No. If it is legalized some idiot will get very high and slam his vehicle into someone else. This is an unfortunate byproduct but one that has to be endured in a free society.

The pro's greatly outweigh the con's.

Of course that is just my opinion :P

I will leave you with this quote:

"Prohibition in any form strikes at the very beliefs that this country was founded upon" - Abraham Lincoln - USA

Thank you for your time,
The nation of Erbas
Letila
30-12-2003, 23:01
Too true. We of Letila support this proposal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
30-12-2003, 23:44
Thank you Letila.

I should mention that I have not drawn up a formal proposal to present for voting. I may but for now I was just offering an opinion on the whole issue.
Letila
31-12-2003, 00:27
If you make this a proposal, we'll suport it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
The Global Market
31-12-2003, 02:17
We support this, though we don't think the 'fat cat coporations' comment is quite warranted.
Letila
31-12-2003, 02:21
It's perfectly warranted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
31-12-2003, 02:30
Isnt it our choise if we want our citizens getting high or not? u dont u just ban it in ur country big shot? :!:
31-12-2003, 02:31
Isnt it our choise if we want our citizens getting high or not? u dont u just ban it in ur country big shot? :!:
The Global Market
31-12-2003, 02:35
Isnt it our choise if we want our citizens getting high or not? u dont u just ban it in ur country big shot? :!:

No, it's the people's choice whether they get high or not. Therefore, drugs should be internationally legal.

And Letila, how is it warranted? The way I see it, 'fat cats' have only to gain from legal marijuana as power is removed from mafia-style drug dealers and placed into legitimate business.
31-12-2003, 15:38
The "Fat cats" that I am referring to are those that disinform the public and support the marijuana prohibition not from a moral stand point or a health stand point but only because they stand to lose money should it be legalized. Upon reflection though the rest of my post was fairly objective and maybe I could have toned it down so as not to sound so bitter.

As far as why I don't feel the need to just ban it in my own country, that was addressed in the "Why this is a UN issue" section of the post.
The Global Market
31-12-2003, 16:53
The "Fat cats" that I am referring to are those that disinform the public and support the marijuana prohibition not from a moral stand point or a health stand point but only because they stand to lose money should it be legalized. Upon reflection though the rest of my post was fairly objective and maybe I could have toned it down so as not to sound so bitter.

As far as why I don't feel the need to just ban it in my own country, that was addressed in the "Why this is a UN issue" section of the post.

I believe that this IS an international issue. The individual has a choice as to whether he gets high or not.

But from where I'm standing, businesses will only profit from legalization.
31-12-2003, 18:31
We support this proposal also.
31-12-2003, 18:31
We support this proposal also.
31-12-2003, 20:02
I would like to see some statistics on the feasibility of making hemp pulp. And as for the others, I'm sure there are less addictive ways of reducing nausea and increasing appetite :) I have a feeling that hemp clothing won't be very comfortable :) durable maybe, but then so's a burlap sack. It may be less addictive that cigarettes, but then you don't get high on cigarettes. And if you get high in public, you're not thinking rationally. In this state, you might be a danger to yourself and other members of the public.

Well.. these are my opinions (and facts) and why I can't support this proposal in it's current form.
Letila
31-12-2003, 20:36
And Letila, how is it warranted? The way I see it, 'fat cats' have only to gain from legal marijuana as power is removed from mafia-style drug dealers and placed into legitimate business.

Legitimate business! The same legitimate business that relies on what is practically slave labor? The same legitimate business that pollutes so much?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
The Global Market
31-12-2003, 20:52
And Letila, how is it warranted? The way I see it, 'fat cats' have only to gain from legal marijuana as power is removed from mafia-style drug dealers and placed into legitimate business.

Legitimate business! The same legitimate business that relies on what is practically slave labor? The same legitimate business that pollutes so much?

Slave labor is, by definition, involuntary. So unless you can find proof that corporations force workers to work...
Komokom
01-01-2004, 11:29
Ah, its all very nice to leave us with a quote about the evil of prohibition, but, isn't smoking of any material bad for you as it introduces nasty bits of stuff into your lungs and bronchial pathways? Who cares if its a freeking drug? If its "good" or "evil", isn't smoking anything bad for you anyhoo? Isn't it as addictive as cigarettes? Therefore is it not equally likely to impact negatively on your long term health?

Constructive clarification welcome.

A Rep of Komokom.
The Black New World
01-01-2004, 16:41
Both use of Marijuana and industrial hemp is legal in the Black New World. Our Queen has this to say on the issue:

“I decided to legalise all drugs in The Black New World and provide my citizens with up to date and un-biased information on drugs. I wanted my people to be able to decide what they should do with their body. We are also able to control the purity of drugs, making them safer for the people who choose to use them.”

Various links and information-

10 Reasons to legalise all drugs
http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

Some Hemp info
http://www.anitaroddick.comb/welog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=30
http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=30

Some Cannabis info
http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugdope.html
http://www.talktofrank.com/azofdrugs/C/Cannabis.aspx(I’m told this is an anti-drug site)

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World
02-01-2004, 20:15
I would like to see some statistics on the feasibility of making hemp pulp. And as for the others, I'm sure there are less addictive ways of reducing nausea and increasing appetite :) I have a feeling that hemp clothing won't be very comfortable :) durable maybe, but then so's a burlap sack. It may be less addictive that cigarettes, but then you don't get high on cigarettes. And if you get high in public, you're not thinking rationally. In this state, you might be a danger to yourself and other members of the public.

Well.. these are my opinions (and facts) and why I can't support this proposal in it's current form.

I should not have said "less addictive", there is no evidence of physical addiction associated with marijuana although granted there is a definite psychological addiction. Yes there are other ways of fighting nausea and increasing appetite but none that I know of that are as effective.

Hemp clothing is actually quite comfortable and yes extremely durable. As comfortable as cotten? probably not but to compare it to burlap is stretching things quite a bit.

I never mentioned getting high in public. Just that it should be legal for someone to decide what they put into their own body.

Advantages of Hemp for Paper Making
Hemp is used for paper making in China, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, England, France, and other countries. Nonwood paper making technologies are being explored most vigorously in countries which do not have sophisticated industry, and in countries with few forests. However, nonwood fiber accounts for only 10 percent of the paper currently being produced.

The hemp plant, Cannabis sativa L., yields two fibers which are usable for paper production: the outer bark, or bast fiber (10*20 percent) and the pithy inner core, or hurd (50 percent) (de Meijer, 1992). The fibers of the outer bark are very long, about 20 mm and make paper that is very strong. For that reason these fibers are superior to wood fibers for most paper making (van der Werf, 1994). Fibers from hemp hurds, however, are far shorter than bast fibers, at about 3 mm yielding a paper that tears easily. This fiber is comparable in many ways to that of hardwoods. Paper can be made from the whole stalk, effecting a compromise between the relative strengths of the two types of fiber. Hemp bast fiber can also be mixed with weaker fibers such as cereal straw, an agricultural waste product that is generally burned in the fields. The paper sold by Living Tree is an example of such a mixture.

Another advantage of hemp fiber for paper making is the low lignin content, which at around seven percent is about one-fourth to one-fifth that of wood. This means that good brightness values can be obtained using environmentally safe peroxide or oxygen bleaching cycles.
_Myopia_
02-01-2004, 20:25
Ah, its all very nice to leave us with a quote about the evil of prohibition, but, isn't smoking of any material bad for you as it introduces nasty bits of stuff into your lungs and bronchial pathways? Who cares if its a freeking drug? If its "good" or "evil", isn't smoking anything bad for you anyhoo? Isn't it as addictive as cigarettes? Therefore is it not equally likely to impact negatively on your long term health?

Constructive clarification welcome.

A Rep of Komokom.

They're my bronchial pathways, so given that I know the dangers, shouldn't I be allowed to put what I choose into my bronchial pathways?
02-01-2004, 21:00
The benefits of hemp in terms of making paper is a complete side issue. It is not relevant to the question of whether cannabis should be legalized as a drug throughout the world.

Firstly, Pettifog have legalized caanabis use in the privacy of your own home. However, the arguments used for legalization are completely inadequate. We are looking at the issue in a ocmpletely internal perspective. We should not look at the idea of personal health, Pettifog believes we should make information available to the population, and then the people can do what they want with their bodies. However, what we should look at is the external problems created by the use of the drug. Reduced economic productivity, additional costs in any public health regimes.

This is why the drug in Pettifog is taxed to the extent where the costs produced by widespread use are covered.

This should NOT pass as a UN resolution. The reason is that some nations have politcal ideologies that mean that no government exists. Therefore the costs of cannabis smoking that are not reflected in the market price will not be recovered. Hence, nations should have the right to make cannabis smoking illegal.

This motion should not even be a proposal, and Pettifog cannot endorse any motions that but bias on any nation's political stand point.
Drangonsile
03-01-2004, 04:14
can i quote some of you in a proposel?
Crazed Ninja Boys
03-01-2004, 08:43
And Letila, how is it warranted? The way I see it, 'fat cats' have only to gain from legal marijuana as power is removed from mafia-style drug dealers and placed into legitimate business.

Legitimate business! The same legitimate business that relies on what is practically slave labor? The same legitimate business that pollutes so much?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
Give it a rest. That was totally off topic, not to mention uncalled for.



I think it should be legalized. I'm not going to do it, but if my neighbor does, then I don't think it's the government's place to tell him what he can and can't do to himself.
03-01-2004, 09:44
Yes Dragonsile you may
03-01-2004, 10:27
Hmmm. Here is the real reason Majuana (or however its spelt) is illeagal, it is because it is not taxed, u watch a no drug commercial its followed up by one for ciccarettes and alchohol, don't have those nasty untaxed drugs they r bad for u here have sum taxed ones. Fact.

If pot was legal and alchohol illegal the world would be a better place. Fact. There would be no car accident, or bad ones anyway people will only be going 5 miles an hour!

*Bump* "Dude we hit sumthin" "oH its just the garage door" *random giggling and fits of hysteria ensue*

Sum1 gets into a fight are they drunk or smokin pot? Drunk. I have never seen anyone smokin pot get into a fight, that is because its fucking impossible.

Pot is so good for the human race it should me mantatory. The world will be populated with unemployed, happy hungry people dominoes pizza trucks will be wizzing along the motorways! Great for economy.

"Godamn this trafics slow" *beeps his horn* A officer walk up to the car "What seems to be the problem sir"
"the traffics move to slow im gunna be late for work!"
"Here have a drag of this, its the law."
"Oh thank you officer, I almost stared taking life seriously then, god day, la la la la la la la la." and so on and so forth.

This is the way the world should be .
_Myopia_
03-01-2004, 14:48
Hmmm. Here is the real reason Majuana (or however its spelt) is illeagal, it is because it is not taxed, u watch a no drug commercial its followed up by one for ciccarettes and alchohol, don't have those nasty untaxed drugs they r bad for u here have sum taxed ones. Fact.

Although I am pro-legalisation, I really must point out that that is not a reason why pot is illegal, it's just a comment on the hypocrisy of today's society. If it was legal, it would be taxed, so that's isn't the reason why it is illegal.
03-01-2004, 14:51
lol spose your right, though you do agree with my other points?
_Myopia_
03-01-2004, 14:52
This should NOT pass as a UN resolution. The reason is that some nations have politcal ideologies that mean that no government exists. Therefore the costs of cannabis smoking that are not reflected in the market price will not be recovered. Hence, nations should have the right to make cannabis smoking illegal.

That makes no sense. If there's no government to collect taxes, there's no government to prohibit cannabis, so those countries will already have cannabis - it's impossible for something to be against the law if there is no law.

And anyway, are you really saying that economic success is more important than the fundamental human right to do what one wants with one's own body?
03-01-2004, 23:24
By my own personal ideals, no, but then while I post I post in the name of Malk leader of Russel Hobbs, and he believes the answer is yes! Does this answer your question?
04-01-2004, 08:28
First off, what i want to say, is that marijuana is not "hemp", it is very confused w/the substance that is used to make necklaces which is hemp. Next, i would like to say the correct terminology for the slang, is "Indian Hemp". The reason it has this name, is because in some native american tribes they sent the young 13 +/- boys out to "find" their spiritualality, and they didnt give them anything, and most ran across it, and found out that you could smoke it. While smoking it, they found their "spirituality", and their "inner animal"(in some tribes thats what its called). Thus, they got the name "Indian Hemp" cause the indians smoked it. Just a minor correction that i wanted to state, and the reason that i konw this, is because I'm an Indian myself. Just for those who don't believe, I'm 1/4th Cheroke Indian. Overall, i support this issue, completely, and you have my support behind you.
_Myopia_
04-01-2004, 13:41
lol spose your right, though you do agree with my other points?

No. I don't believe that any soft drug should be illegal, so I disagree with banning alcohol instead of pot.

Likewise, no drug should be mandatory, for the same reason - you have no right to tell me what I can, can't or must do with my body.

And finally, with the current lack of research into passive smoking of marijuana etc., I'm not sure that people should be allowed to smoke pot in public, because by possibly endangering others, that's infringing on their rights to decide what to do with their body.
The Global Market
04-01-2004, 15:47
That's why we should try to eliminate as much public property as possible, except for what's necessary like courts. We can ban drugs there and elsewhere, just let the property owners decide whether they want drugs in or not.