NationStates Jolt Archive

As a straight edger I dont want marijuana to be legal, but i also feel that i shouldnt oppress others because of my own feelings. So what should i do, i also saw a vote for and against trading marijuana. I just dont know!

It poses no more threat to you then tobbaco does, so why not legalise it?

Or in that vein, why not outlaw tobacco?

Tobacco would be illegal if it were recently made, but, like alcohol, it's been around for so long, that we don't try to get rid of it.

And we learned our lesson in the 20s.

Tobacco would be illegal if it were recently made, but, like alcohol, it's been around for so long, that we don't try to get rid of it.

And we learned our lesson in the 20s.

Actually, hemp has been around a damned long time. In the eighteenth century, the colony of Virginia required all households to grow hemp. (Source: Eric Schlosser, _Reefer Madness_) It wasn't until the twentieth century, with massive theocratic and racist campagins against marjiuana, that its prohibition began, but marijuana had been around in America for far longer.

From what I have read and heard from less reliable sources, the paper and liquor industries were also involved in marijuana prohibition--paper because hemp provides a good substitute for trees, for making paper, rope, and so on; and liquor because marijuana might compete with alcohol. It would certainly make sense that these two industries were involved, but I have not seen empirical proof that I find satisfactory.

In any case, what it comes down to really is the arbitrarity of social customs. Despite the fact that scientific commissions have almost always found that marijuana is not nearly as harmless as popular hysteria claims it is, presidencies such as those of Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes tend to reject science in favor of populism (as is probably a political necessity). The Justice Department, around the same time Canada was decriminalizing possession of up to 10g of marijuana, as a result of a report that described the drug's benign nature, issued an "Open Letter to America's Prosecutors", saying, "Marijuana is addictive. Marijuana and violence are linked... marijuana is a gateway drug... marijuana legalization would be a nightmare... marijuana is not a medicine." (Schlosser again) This is a bald-faced lie, of course, and yet it is popular belief, or at least was until a few years ago, and may well still be. Bush decided to tighten border control with Canada as a result of decriminalization, claiming Canada's move posed a national security threat. Schlosser points out that Bush didn't bother to mention the grave security threat posed by the state of Ohio, where possession of up to 100g has been decriminalized for years.

Anyway, the point is it doesn't have to do with the longevity of the drug's presence in our society; it has to do with more complex cultural factors, which I doubt anybody fully understands.

Actually in terms of marajuana, it does not pose any more health risks than tobacco, but has similar psycological effects as alocohol, so.. .while I specifically could care less about it, if it were legalized, I would need the same legal regulations as alcohol.

Actually in terms of marajuana, it does not pose any more health risks than tobacco, but has similar psycological effects as alocohol, so.. .while I specifically could care less about it, if it were legalized, I would need the same legal regulations as alcohol.

I agree. No toking and driving, no sale to kids. Of course, a much more difficult issue is what the age limits should be for things.

However, while we're on the subject of health risks, I'd point out that marijuana poses fewer health risks than tobacco: nicotine is physically addictive, whereas cannabinoids are not; as a result, people generally smoke much less marijuana than they do tobacco, making the amount of lung damage not comparable. In other words, frequent recreational use of marijuana without abuse is common; frequent recreational use of tobacco without abuse is rare.

And tetrahydrocannabinol doesn't impair judgment the way alcohol does, which is an important difference in the effects of the two drugs.

Err... sorry about the duplicate post.

Or in that vein, why not outlaw tobacco?

Good point.

On that subject, outlawing tobacco would be worse than marijuana and alcohol prohibition. Because nicotine is so extremely addictive (difficulty of quitting rivals that of heroin), cigarettes would become something like, for instance, heroin. People would be buying dimebags of tobacco on the streets, tobacco would be linked to crime, and people would be drinking "nicotinis" (they already are in bars in New York City, where smoking in bars has been outlawed). If cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will smoke cigarettes.

My nation has decriminalized marijuana, although it is banned in public places. I think every nation should develop their own drug policy, and the UN should stay out of it.

President Letizia

Actually in terms of marajuana, it does not pose any more health risks than tobacco, but has similar psycological effects as alocohol, so.. .while I specifically could care less about it, if it were legalized, I would need the same legal regulations as alcohol.

I agree. No toking and driving, no sale to kids. Of course, a much more difficult issue is what the age limits should be for things.

However, while we're on the subject of health risks, I'd point out that marijuana poses fewer health risks than tobacco: nicotine is physically addictive, whereas cannabinoids are not; as a result, people generally smoke much less marijuana than they do tobacco, making the amount of lung damage not comparable. In other words, frequent recreational use of marijuana without abuse is common; frequent recreational use of tobacco without abuse is rare.

And tetrahydrocannabinol doesn't impair judgment the way alcohol does, which is an important difference in the effects of the two drugs.

It doesn't "impair" judgement, not in the exact same way alcohol does, but a slow-down in reaction time, relevant to marajuana usage, leads to the same judgement defect when you're talking about operating machinery.... THC has severe effects on the brain, THC actually naturally occurs with neural activity, increased levels of THC block receptors, primarily in the hippocampus (the region associated with short-term memory), the basal gaglia and cerebellum (associated with coordination and movement, as well as "reflex" actions)..... In short, persons under the influence of marajuana have no short-term memory (generally why they most people using seem to ramble, as they don't even really know what they are saying anymore), and prevent the ability for the person to react to their enviromen in casualty situations... they loose basic coordination skills, sense of depth perception, and take longer to react to enviromental changes.... On the flip note, THC also causes a slight increase in motablism, increase in heart rate, and it's advised not to use marajuana if you have heart conditions.... as it's been reported people suffering heart attacks within hours of use, due to the increased heart rate (if you have conditions like mis-firing heart valves, the condition is extenuated by the increased heart-beat rate).

As for marajuana users being "over-cautious", being over-cautious can be just as dangerous as being reckless on the road... when driving being alert to your surroundings is what is key to good driving... and marajuana handicaps your ability to process everything going on around you, and handicaps the time it takes you to react to those situations.

In the long run, it should have the same proscriptions as provided alcohol usage in conjunction with driving, and work-related operations..... at the least.

*puff* Uh... What? Hey.. Why Is That Car Stopped At A Legal Red Light Right In Front Of Me While Im Goin' 185mph... *crash*

Actually, Izrathia, that is an unlikely situation because studies have shown that whereas drunks often do not realise how far gone they are, those who smoked weed generally underestimated their ability to drive and so drove with extreme care. It did affect their perception of time somewhat, but in terms of actual driving performance, this was balanced by the additional care they took.

Even so, I agree that I wouldn't really want someone driving after using marijauna in any substantial quantity. But then, ditto alcohol - so this is not really an argument for making cannabis illegal, just for instituting stoned-driving laws.

The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia believes that if there's a law against Marijuana, the people will get it illegally anyways, in a much more dangerous way. The debate with Marijuana is quite similar to that of Abortion. Either way, the people are still going to do it.

Similarly, as Tekania has already stated, the effects of Marijuana are similar to those of tobacco and [psycologically] alcohol. Therefore, the law dealing with marijuana should be that no one under the age of the nations alcohol consumption restriction age may partake in the act of smoking marijuana.

Signed,
The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia

Go ahead and vote for it. B/c if marijuna is legalized, I'm going to tax the hell out of it. I'll make a profit off of it. If those people want to ruin their lives then they can do so.