NationStates Jolt Archive

Cannabis [not Sure If Spelt Rite] Its Not Legal Most Places Some Places It Is Should It Be Lega Well I Wont Yr Opinion Do Think Cannabis Should Be Legal Wen I Get Some Awnsers Ill Give My Opinion So Get Posting Cannabis Yes Or No?

I would say yes, but only because alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

Of course it should be legal, along with any other drug. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

It's your body. Do what you want with it.

Of course it should be legal, along with any other drug. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

It's your body. Do what you want with it.

And what about date-rape drugs? Those aren't commonly used by people on their own bodies; should they be legal as well?

Of course it should be legal, along with any other drug. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

It's your body. Do what you want with it.
Agreed. And I also believe the specific "vice taxes" levied on liquor, cigarettes, etc., should also be repealed. Otherwise politicians will just drive up the taxes until the product is driven underground again.

Agreed. And I also believe the specific "vice taxes" levied on liquor, cigarettes, etc., should also be repealed. Otherwise politicians will just drive up the taxes until the product is driven underground again.

Agreed. Instead of outrageous taxes, the government should enforce strict quality standards on drugs and tobacco products.

As offended as I am by the knowledge of grammar displayed in the title post, I'll answer anyway.

Legalization
Pros:
Civil liberty- it's my body, and I'll do what I want with it
Economic- Taxes, taxes, taxes
Hedonistic- that's self-explanatory

Cons:
Expense- much like alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling marijuana costs money that could be better used elsewhere
Slippery Slope- if MJ, why not cocaine and heroin and their ilk as well?
Damage- due to its illegality, and the number of partisan supporters/opponents, it is difficult if not impossible to find a long-term objective study into the damage done by marijuana

With all these things to consider, I vote other. Since you didn't put an other option, I voted "no", seeing as the yes side has more than enough adherents.
I think we should have a govt.-sponsored, objective study into its effects, and then decide.

And what about date-rape drugs? Those aren't commonly used by people on their own bodies; should they be legal as well?
Putting them into your body should be legal. Putting them into someone else's body without their permission should be VERY, VERY illegal.

Weed's never killed anyone. Legalize it.

There was a study released a few days ago that said it reduced the chance for heart disease (unless smoked). We're paying a ridiculous amount of money to try and keep people from finding Spongebob Squarepants a little funnier than intended an Ho Hos more delicious than they really are. It's just stupid.

I think we should have a govt.-sponsored, objective study into its effects, and then decide.

The last govt.-sponsored, "objective" study involved injecting huge amounts of cannabis directly into the brains of chimps like seven times a day - probably not a good idea.

We do know, at the very least, that cannabis helps people on chemotherapy, etc. It should certainly be legalized at least for that (and is now, in some states).

The last govt.-sponsored, "objective" study involved injecting huge amounts of cannabis directly into the brains of chimps like seven times a day - probably not a good idea.

We do know, at the very least, that cannabis helps people on chemotherapy, etc. It should certainly be legalized at least for that (and is now, in some states).

I live in Canada, where medicinal marijuana is in widespread use. Also, we're moving towards decriminalization (although, with the liberals on the way out, that may not last).
I just wish there was more accurate, unbiased information available.

I live in Canada, where medicinal marijuana is in widespread use. Also, we're moving towards decriminalization (although, with the liberals on the way out, that may not last).
I just wish there was more accurate, unbiased information available.

You just have to read the studies themselves. If it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, then they are ethically required to divulge their funding (so if you see DEA or High Times, you know where the money was coming from).

From what I've read, it really isn't any more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. In fact, if ingested rather than smoked, it seems to be less so.

Cannabis [not Sure If Spelt Rite] Its Not Legal Most Places Some Places It Is Should It Be Lega Well I Wont Yr Opinion Do Think Cannabis Should Be Legal Wen I Get Some Awnsers Ill Give My Opinion So Get Posting Cannabis Yes Or No?

You aren't sure if you spelled Cannabis right? Why does that bother you? I mean, you only mis-spelled or gramatically eviscerated Spelt, Rite, Its, lega, Wont, Yr, Awnsers, and Ill, to say nothing of the sentence structure, or your practice of capitalizing every word.
If you want to play fast and loose with spelling, don't worry about how you "spelt" cannabis. If someone were to be offended by your spelling, that would certainly not be the place.

I think Cannabis is a wonderful gift from nature. Legalize it. Don't critisize it.

You just have to read the studies themselves. If it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, then they are ethically required to divulge their funding (so if you see DEA or High Times, you know where the money was coming from).

From what I've read, it really isn't any more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. In fact, if ingested rather than smoked, it seems to be less so.


Vaporizing is teh best way. ahhhhhh yeah

I recently wrote an essay on it for English:

End Prohibition on Cannabis

We have all been taught, indoctrinated if you will, that drugs are evil and we need to vigorously fight the “war on drugs” in order to protect ourselves from the evils of recreational drug use. This indoctrination has been a barrier to the legalization of cannabis. But have we ever really thought hard about this issue, without being overpowered by our collective indoctrination?
About two weeks ago, four RCMP officers were killed by James Roszko in the line of duty while investigating some stolen property and what appeared to be a marijuana grow op. In response to the tragedy, the Liberal party, which was having their convention at the time, began talking about increasing the penalties for growing marijuana, in order to deter people from growing marijuana. What they either fail to realize, or do realize but don’t care, is that increasing the penalties for the cultivation of marijuana will have no effect other than pleasing simpletons. Increased sentencing will not deter people from participating in a highly profitable business. Increasing the penalties for marijuana related offences is just an attempt by the ruling party to convince the public that they are “tough on crime” in order to maintain their level of support with the uninformed public.
Prohibition is nothing new. It was tried on alcohol in the early 20th century and it was a dismal failure. At first, alcohol consumption went down, but by the end of Prohibition it was almost as high as ever and on the rise. One of the main goals of Prohibition was to reduce corruption and crime. Instead, corruption and crime, especially organized crime, hit an all time high with the criminal empires of Al Capone and the like being built up on bootlegging and bribery. Today’s gangs are not unlike these criminal empires of the 30s; they produce and sell prohibited substances on the black market to generate revenue for criminal activities. It is true that cirrhosis of the liver went down during Prohibition, but many other health problems arose due to lack of quality control and government regulation in the alcohol industry. One of these problems was paralysis of the hands and feet caused by drinking “Jake,” a patent medicine that contained high amounts of ethyl alcohol which was drunk as an alcohol substitute. Legalization and government regulation can help reduce the number of deaths caused by the use of contaminated or otherwise dangerous marijuana. It would also make it easier for addicts to seek help without fear of prosecution by law enforcement agencies. Prohibition was a failure then and it is failing now.
Fighting recreational marijuana use is a waste of government resources. Why are we fighting a “soft drug” which has milder health and societal risks than alcohol or cigarettes when we could be using those government resources for other priorities such as healthcare, the military, or foreign aid? Why are we prosecuting people for victimless crimes when we could be using our resources in much better ways, such as social programs or tax cuts?
Legalizing marijuana would also give several economic benefits. Think of the extra revenues that could be generated through taxes similar to those on alcohol or tobacco products. Several industries would also benefit from access to industrial hemp, which is predicted to be a crop of the future due to its many uses. Prohibition of alcohol hurt the economy due to less government revenue from the alcohol industry and an increased burden on the law enforcement community. Prohibition of marijuana does the same.
Prohibition on alcohol created Al Capone, and prohibition on cannabis created James Roszko. The end of prohibition destroyed the criminal empire of Al Capone. It’s time for us to destroy the criminal empires of those involved with the cultivation and dealing of cannabis by doing what they fear most: legalizing it and allowing the free markets to take away their business.

Seriously, most of the problems associated with cannabis (gangs, violence, etc.) are probably due to prohibition, not cannabis itself

Well, whatever you think of that essay, there is in Britain a movement to end the prohibition of all drugs: The Angel Declaration.

Legalise and tax it. Would probably be loads cheaper than any criminal could provide it at anyway, would be quality controlled, take a money source away from criminals and stop wasting police time. Not to mention the tax money could be spent on improving the NHS to not just cope with the inevitable extra strain, but for other medical problems as well.

Agreed. Instead of outrageous taxes, the government should enforce strict quality standards on drugs and tobacco products.
Ah, but to "enforce strict quality standards" the government has to pay for it all. How should the government pay for anything? With tax. Great answer. It only makes sense that the people taking advantage of the product should pay the extra tax that promotes quality.

Ah, but to "enforce strict quality standards" the government has to pay for it all. How should the government pay for anything? With tax. Great answer. It only makes sense that the people taking advantage of the product should pay the extra tax that promotes quality.

exactly... teh sales tax

Well, whatever you think of that essay, there is in Britain a movement to end the prohibition of all drugs: The Angel Declaration.

We got the Marijuana Party up here

Cannabis [not Sure If Spelt Rite] Its Not Legal Most Places Some Places It Is Should It Be Lega Well I Wont Yr Opinion Do Think Cannabis Should Be Legal Wen I Get Some Awnsers Ill Give My Opinion So Get Posting Cannabis Yes Or No?

You capitalized every word. For Godssake have mercy on the shift key, its your friend when used properly.
That said, Maregeewana should be legal and controled like booze. I have never smoked weed but have been around plenty of people who have and it didn't make anyof them any different than a couple of beer would. I also knew a nurse who told me that most of the doctors she worked with smoke weed at their parties, I think if it really was so unhealthy docs would avoid it more than that.

I recently wrote an essay on it for English:

End Prohibition on Cannabis

About two weeks ago, four RCMP officers were killed by James Roszko in the line of duty while investigating some stolen property and what appeared to be a marijuana grow op. In response to the tragedy, the Liberal party, which was having their convention at the time, began talking about increasing the penalties for growing marijuana, in order to deter people from growing marijuana.
prohibition on cannabis created James Roszko.


James Roszko was a car-thief, convicted child-molester, violent cop-hater. Prohibition certainly did not create him, and portraying Roszko and the death of four cops is misleading and dishonest. The cops had to stay overnight on his property because they were waiting for a car-theft team from Edmonton to examine his facilities.

You aren't sure if you spelled Cannabis right? Why does that bother you? I mean, you only mis-spelled or gramatically eviscerated Spelt, Rite, Its, lega, Wont, Yr, Awnsers, and Ill, to say nothing of the sentence structure, or your practice of capitalizing every word.
If you want to play fast and loose with spelling, don't worry about how you "spelt" cannabis. If someone were to be offended by your spelling, that would certainly not be the place.
Well, if I was going to be picky I would point out that "spelt" is just as much a word as "spelled" is. But I'm not.

Well, if I was going to be picky I would point out that "spelt" is just as much a word as "spelled" is. But I'm not.

Ah, yes, but spelt refers to grain, which in that context was gramatically inaccurate. However, if he made a spelling mistake, it would be as gramatically accurate as the rest of his post.
I just thought it was funny that he was worried about the spelling of one word when his entire post was a testament to the destruction of the written English language.

Ah, yes, but spelt refers to grain,

True, but it also refers to the past tense of "spell."

http://www.answers.com/spelt&r=67

True, but it also refers to the past tense of "spell."

http://www.answers.com/spelt&r=67

Cool.
I'm still pretty sure my English teacher would mark it wrong :D

Legalize it, and then tax it. The money raised would be considerable, an entire new industry with millions of jobs on all levels would be created, jails and the police would be freed from the burden of marijuana possesing "criminals", and we could shift billions of dollars from the BS War on Drugs to real programs.

Ah, yes, but spelt refers to grain, which in that context was gramatically inaccurate. However, if he made a spelling mistake, it would be as gramatically accurate as the rest of his post.
Ah, but you see it depends if you use American or British spellings really. Both are perfectly fine, but "Spelled" is more common in the US, and "Spelt" is more common in the UK.

Yes, there is the Cannabis Alliance here. And, I'm curious: tax it...and it will become cheaper?

Ah, but you see it depends if you use American or British spellings really. Both are perfectly fine, but "Spelled" is more common in the US, and "Spelt" is more common in the UK.

Ahh, that explains it. Thank you.
(I use Canadian spelling)

Ah, but you see it depends if you use American or British spellings really. Both are perfectly fine, but "Spelled" is more common in the US, and "Spelt" is more common in the UK.

I'm from the US, and use "spelt" because I think that using the "correct" irregular verb tense is more intelligent sounding.

James Roszko was a car-thief, convicted child-molester, violent cop-hater. Prohibition certainly did not create him, and portraying Roszko and the death of four cops is misleading and dishonest. The cops had to stay overnight on his property because they were waiting for a car-theft team from Edmonton to examine his facilities.

well, I did write it a few weeks ago, when the details were more sketchy (I think it was about a week after)...but you get the point. There are other Al Capones of marijuana out there. And my main point in the first part was how increased sentencing won't do jack.

Yes, there is the Cannabis Alliance here. And, I'm curious: tax it...and it will become cheaper?

The magic of the free markets...

I think Cannabis is a wonderful gift from nature. Legalize it. Don't critisize it.

I agree. Its all natural. It isn't all processed like cocaine and what not. If mother nature provides light up.

I say yes.

Not only is it relitavely harmless as a drug, it clogs up the judicial system with petty fines and charges. It should be regulated and taxed. This would profit the government as well as the users. Of course, the DUI laws would also have to encompass it, along with handheld testing systems for police officers.

I really can't see a reason to keep it illegal, it's impractical and pointless. The market for mj is huge, and there's no reason not to get a cut of it. Homegrowing of course, would be still be illegal (gvt property), so not that much legislation would change. File the smoking right beside tabacco, file the highness right beside alcohol. No new guidelines would have to introduced.

Harmless. Should be legalized and regulated as alcohol is.

Dude. Dooooooood. Doood. What was the question?





Oh yeah.


Yes, Dude. Like totally.

Cons:
Expense- much like alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling marijuana costs money that could be better used elsewhere
Slippery Slope- if MJ, why not cocaine and heroin and their ilk as well?
Damage- due to its illegality, and the number of partisan supporters/opponents, it is difficult if not impossible to find a long-term objective study into the damage done by marijuana
expense- capitalism
slippery slope- pure propoganda (spelling?), why not cocain or heroin
1. they are physically addictive
2. you can OD on coacain heroin, etc.
damage- observational studies can't prove causality. controlled experiments have. as i recall (no source) the government did studies using animals or someone did, i dont know....its a perscription drug in some places so i guess it would have to meet FDA approval and what not which takes like years of experimentation and overwhelming evidence that its not dangerous...again not sure. anyway thats the only thing there allowed to do, (thats what they did with cigarettes) because its unethical to do it on people or something.... anyway this all half memory from stat so make of it what you want

by the way it works for every other country with legalized pot why not the US?

I don't see why liquor, which causes 10's of thousands of deaths every year, should be legal, while marijuana which causes little or no deaths, is illegal. People who get drunk, often become violent, while people who smoke weed get very mellow. Marijuana is NOT addictive, regardless of what some people tell you. I've smoked it for 10 years and I still go weeks, months without it. Not that often do I go a month without it, but I certainly don't feel like I can't live without it. My brother who smoked pot almost everyday after work, quit pretty easily when he took a job as a truck driver that requires drug tests. I asked was it hard to quit and he said, "not really but it still sucks that I can't smoke it". That's all really it was to him is something that helped him relax after work, but unlike alcohol abuse, cocaine and heroin, he didn't have to go to rehab to quit.

So tell me, how the hell did alcohol ever become legal?

Well, I used to think so without question, but...

If Dis Is Tha Sort OF Result That Comes Of It Than Maby Not

;)

I like to smoke it, but I think it should still be illegal, cuz if you're stupid enough to get caught, then weed isn't doing you much good.

Interestingly, it's my father who thinks marijuana should be legal, but that's cuz he's a Board Certified anesthaesiologist.

Legalise it.

Regulate it.

Tax the fuck out of it.

I think it should be banned if it causes people to forget all basic grammar, spelling and sentence structure rules.

Personally, I dont touch pot, but I take ecstasy. Therefore ecstasy should be legal and pot shouldn't. =P

I like to smoke it, but I think it should still be illegal, cuz if you're stupid enough to get caught, then weed isn't doing you much good.

Interestingly, it's my father who thinks marijuana should be legal, but that's cuz he's a Board Certified anesthaesiologist.
When THC is made into a liquidised form and sprayed under the tongue, it is an extemely good pain killer. And by that, I mean it is enough to stop a lot of pain and make pain sufferer's lives much easier, but it isn't as strong and addictive as, say, morphine.
I think THC by itself is a really good idea, and it is stupid for the government top just blindely ban all forms of it.
However, smoking cannibis is bad for you, just like smoking tobacco is. It contains more tar than tobacco, kills brain cells, causes paranoia and a whole host of other mental diseases.

Most of the problems that arise from smoking cannibis are the result of people who smoke pot thinking that is is harmless. I've heard every reason under the sun as to why it is a godsend, from "it relaxes me" to "I have an overactive mind". It is stupid. You smoke pot because you want to get an effect, that's fine, but dont smoke it regularly because you've somehow convinced yourself that it is doing you good, because that will only lead to you getting paranoid, as well as starting a whole range of mental illnesses.

I remember the first time I had weed that was laced. I would be walking somewhere, like accross a lawn, and as I started accross I'd be back at the beginning starting accross again, and then again and again, until there were 50 me's crossing the lawn and I wasn't sure which time frame I was supposed to be in. Then somehow I'd figure out which time frame was the right one and the others would fade away. It was kind of like having Temporal Photocopies made of you. I was like that for a couple of days after taking the hit.

I think it should be banned if it causes people to forget all basic grammar, spelling and sentence structure rules.

Personally, I dont touch pot, but I take ecstasy. Therefore ecstasy should be legal and pot shouldn't. =P

I feel I should warn you about some recent findings. Don't take ecstacy and SSRIs at the same time. You'll develop acute Serotonin Syndrome, which is lethal in a third of the cases. It happened to a friend of mine living in California and she's still in rehab.

Most people tend to forget that cannabis is already taxed in some states of the US. This is from the times when it was still legal.
I can live with the compromise that we have in Germany. The police is strongly advised not to arrest consumers and people carrying small amounts (small amount varies from state to state). The public prosecutors were fed up with files piling up on petty, victimless drug crimes and thus this policy was installed. The police force is happy, because they now have the time and manpower to go after the big fishes, who still get the full force of the law, the prosecutors get down to the real cases and the small time consumers like me can smoke in the streets or some pubs where the landlord doesnt care.

They should legalize pot and all other drugs. Get the gov't to manufacture and distribute it to those people who will never defeat their addictions. Put the fuckers in seperate communites and let them have what they want.

Make sure living stards are minimal but comfortable, and allow anyone who wants to clean up move out.

There will be no more overdoses because a controlled manufacture means the drugs are of consisnent amount and pure.

There'd ne no more junkies and crackers jacking anything not bolted down to pawn it for drugs
There wouldn't be any prostitutes sellng themselves just to get another fix.
No more drug dealers, from top to bottom.

No more biker gangs make billions from the sale of illegal drugs.

No more fuckhead pimps who use crack to turn 12 year old girls to turning tricks for him.

We haven't been able to defeat the scourge of addiction by making drugs illegal. We've tried for hundreds of years and we've still had practicly no success in actualy stopping people from taking drugs and fucking up their lives.

Maybe its time for a new approach? ( however insane its sounds )

The track record of the War on Drugs has only been to make more people suffer while more people make more money off of their pain. That and costing untold Billions of dollars which could've been much better spent elsewhere.

I'm certainly not a big fan of cannabis. I've dumbed two boyfriends because of their heavy use of it. Anyway I think it should be legalized and used much more as medication. Cannabis is not harmless. It's a bit dangerous because it's effects aren't as obvious as with some other drugs. Certainly it's not as dangerous as alcohol.

First of all there are huge amounts of tar if smoked. But that's a non-issue for me.
Secondly, it can lead to cannabispsychosis. Quite rare, but not nice.
Thirdly, and by my experience, this is the biggest problem especially among teenagers and young adults. It does not kill your braincells but put quite many of them into "sleeping mode" which lasts about 3 days. So one could say there's no problem, but quite many use cannabis more often than that. Their brains are constantly on sleeping mode and they don't even realise they're not as bright as they normally are. I know people who've been stoned over 2 years and that's not a happy sight.

Some of my old friends quit later (some use it occasionally) and regret that they'd wasted such long periods of their lives. Some never quit and they're in a quite bad condition at the moment. Some decided to make more money out of it and started to sell stronger drugs and ended up in jail.

Most of the users never face this kind of problems and IMO cannabis is much better than alcohol for some people, especially for those who become aggressive when drunk. I've tried it but it's not for me. I stick with beer and wine.

I don't see why liquor, which causes 10's of thousands of deaths every year, should be legal, while marijuana which causes little or no deaths, is illegal. People who get drunk, often become violent, while people who smoke weed get very mellow. Marijuana is NOT addictive, regardless of what some people tell you. I've smoked it for 10 years and I still go weeks, months without it. Not that often do I go a month without it, but I certainly don't feel like I can't live without it. My brother who smoked pot almost everyday after work, quit pretty easily when he took a job as a truck driver that requires drug tests. I asked was it hard to quit and he said, "not really but it still sucks that I can't smoke it". That's all really it was to him is something that helped him relax after work, but unlike alcohol abuse, cocaine and heroin, he didn't have to go to rehab to quit.

So tell me, how the hell did alcohol ever become legal?
absolutley. alcohol became legal because of its prevalent use accross all of European culture - people drank beer (about 2% or less alcohol content) instead of water because the water was less safe to drink than the beer. its just stuck. i still say that if tobacco and alcohol were to be 'discovered' tomorrow, they would be classed as class A drugs - they are both addictive and potentially lethal, while weed STILL hasn't killed anybody in 4,000 years of use :rolleyes:

anyway, my two cents: i think weed should be legalised for sale in government licensed shops (coffeehops a la Amsterdam), and the government should impose strict health & safety, and quality standards on the weed sold by those shops. supply of marijuana through any other medium (dealers) should be strictly prohibited to ensure quality and remove the criminal element that not only causes problems itself, but also leads to the 'gateway drug' effect.

I feel I should warn you about some recent findings. Don't take ecstacy and SSRIs at the same time. You'll develop acute Serotonin Syndrome, which is lethal in a third of the cases. It happened to a friend of mine living in California and she's still in rehab.


What are SSRIs?

I think it should be legalized. I live in an area where lots of people getting heavily stoned everyday. I have seen the good sides to it, and the bad sides, and just like everything, it's finding the line between use and abuse. Whether or not you think it's a bad drug, I think it (and other drugs) should be legalized because a) they'd be easier to regulate, a lot of drug related fatalities/hospilisations are due to a bad cut of something b) tax it c) We have the right to choose what to put in our body. Where as with Alcohol and Ciggerettes, you can argue they are both addictive, and once you are an addict you don't really have any control, with weed it's only physcologically addictive. You could be a heavy smoker for years, give up cold turkey, and only have minor withdrawall symptoms.

I think it all boils down to one thing, at least here in America. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s and 1930s and it won't work now.

Legalize it already and move on.

As for date rape drugs and things like that used to harm others... punish the crap out of people who are caught dosing others against their will!

I think it should be banned if it causes people to forget all basic grammar, spelling and sentence structure rules.

Personally, I dont touch pot, but I take ecstasy. Therefore ecstasy should be legal and pot shouldn't. =P

Cannabis is a little easier on the body though, E come downs take ages to pass. :eek:

absolutley. alcohol became legal because of its prevalent use accross all of European culture

I don't think beer ever 'became' legal, since really it predates the craze to make drugs illegal. That is, it has always been legal.

(Sorry, very pedantic today.)

- people drank beer (about 2% or less alcohol content) instead of water because the water was less safe to drink than the beer. its just stuck. i still say that if tobacco and alcohol were to be 'discovered' tomorrow, they would be classed as class A drugs - they are both addictive and potentially lethal, while weed STILL hasn't killed anybody in 4,000 years of use :rolleyes:

I agree with that though, that they would be illegal. Not one the class though. AFAIK alcohol is classes as a "class B" drug, I think the same for nicotine, but I honestly have no idea (though for a drug that is more poisonous and adictive then heroine, and other class A drugs, it really should be class A for sake of consistency).

Interesting that a class B drug is legal and easily obtainable when class C's are either legal only with prescriptions, or heavily controlled.

(NB: Alcohol as a class B drug is culled from drug awareness classes at school, and since there are other things taught to me that are untrue/greatly exagerated the same may be true of that. Though it was a police woman that told me that. Nicotine as class B is conjecture on my part, I have no proof and have never been taught it).

anyway, my two cents: i think weed should be legalised for sale in government licensed shops (coffeehops a la Amsterdam), and the government should impose strict health & safety, and quality standards on the weed sold by those shops. supply of marijuana through any other medium (dealers) should be strictly prohibited to ensure quality and remove the criminal element that not only causes problems itself, but also leads to the 'gateway drug' effect.

I think this is where we differ. I think it should be decriminalised only, since I think that would encourage more home grown stuff and help prevent the big tobacco companies muscling in (they probably have all the market research done and the brand naming an packaging done, all they are waiting for is the green light, pun unintentional).

well, I did write it a few weeks ago, when the details were more sketchy (I think it was about a week after)...but you get the point. There are other Al Capones of marijuana out there. And my main point in the first part was how increased sentencing won't do jack.

I think it is equally wrong to propose tougher penalties as it is to push for legalization based on James Roszko. Roszko's modest marijuana grow-op was immediately used as political capital for people on both sides of the issue, and it should not have been.
Roszko was a ticking time-bomb and any attemp to use him by either side is fallacious.

I don't think beer ever 'became' legal, since really it predates the craze to make drugs illegal. That is, it has always been legal.

(Sorry, very pedantic today.)

well, yeah... ok

I agree with that though, that they would be illegal. Not one the class though. AFAIK alcohol is classes as a "class B" drug, I think the same for nicotine, but I honestly have no idea (though for a drug that is more poisonous and adictive then heroine, and other class A drugs, it really should be class A for sake of consistency).

Interesting that a class B drug is legal and easily obtainable when class C's are either legal only with prescriptions, or heavily controlled.

(NB: Alcohol as a class B drug is culled from drug awareness classes at school, and since there are other things taught to me that are untrue/greatly exagerated the same may be true of that. Though it was a police woman that told me that. Nicotine as class B is conjecture on my part, I have no proof and have never been taught it).

i think you may have been misinformed. check out this (http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/ds_results.asp?file=\wip\11\1\1\alcohol.html#THE%20LAW) site - it doesn't mention Alcohol being classed as a narcotic at all, and the site is usually pretty up-to-date & accurate about drug laws.



I think this is where we differ. I think it should be decriminalised only, since I think that would encourage more home grown stuff and help prevent the big tobacco companies muscling in (they probably have all the market research done and the brand naming an packaging done, all they are waiting for is the green light, pun unintentional).
hmm never considered that before. i figured having small-scale retailers (privatley owned or small chains of coffeeshops) and having large scale supply (growing) of the plant would be best. that way all the small scale retailers can benefit from the same economies of scale a single, larger retailer/grower firm could, but it keeps the market a) cometative, and b) without much power (as compared to the cigarette companies). of course the ones with power would be the growers, but government regulation and controls could ensure best practice - maybe having an inflation-linked price cap, updated every year?

i made a big list of my thoughts on drug laws a few months back: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388895 if you're interested :)

hmm never considered that before. i figured having small-scale retailers (privatley owned or small chains of coffeeshops) and having large scale supply (growing) of the plant would be best. that way all the small scale retailers can benefit from the same economies of scale a single, larger retailer/grower firm could, but it keeps the market a) cometative, and b) without much power (as compared to the cigarette companies). of course the ones with power would be the growers, but government regulation and controls could ensure best practice - maybe having an inflation-linked price cap, updated every year?

I'm far more skeptical on the role of the state and government intervention. I cannot concieve of any (realistic) government actually putting a cap on such a potentially lucrative market.

Also I'm not too keen on government intervention and regulation.

Also it could turn into tobacco industry mk II, with big business ultimately monopolising it (de facto), since they can easily out produce home growers. I say de facto since to be pedantic the big tobacco companies don't have a 100% monopoly, a handful of people grow their own tobacco.

Though I am open to admiting that might not, since there appears to be a strong tradition of growing weed. (I would guess that every pot smoker knows at least one person who grows weed or has tried to grow it themself)

i made a big list of my thoughts on drug laws a few months back: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388895 if you're interested :)

Oooh,

*peruses*

I'm far more skeptical on the role of the state and government intervention. I cannot concieve of any (realistic) government actually putting a cap on such a potentially lucrative market.

Also I'm not too keen on government intervention and regulation.

Also it could turn into tobacco industry mk II, with big business ultimately monopolising it (de facto), since they can easily out produce home growers. I say de facto since to be pedantic the big tobacco companies don't have a 100% monopoly, a handful of people grow their own tobacco.

Though I am open to admiting that might not, since there appears to be a strong tradition of growing weed. (I would guess that every pot smoker knows at least one person who grows weed or has tried to grow it themself)

yeah, unfortunaltey without regulation the marijuana industry could turn into such a Tobacco Industry Mk II - while i am generally more in favour of government intervention (PC figures in sig) i think this is one area where regulation is absolutley necessary to prevent monopolisation (if that is a word :p) and the firms gaining too much power over govt policy (as per the current tobacco industry), especially as this is a new market and can obviously benefit from economies of scale.
i can't think of another way to stop monopolies forming in this new market other than regulation, and this method seperates the growers and retailers which essentially means the best of both worlds - high competition and low power with regard to the retailers, and large competative growers gaining from economies of scale, but regulated to ensure quality and they don't abuse their (allowed) oligopoly position/power to raise prices unfairly and harm the consumer.
and of course, people should be allowed to grow it themselves (in fact, we're smoking a shitload of a friends' homegrown at the mo :D ) and there should be provision for 'social supply' - sale of weed to your mates (already an issue covered in the downgrading of marijuana from B to C class drug last year)

suggested reading: 'Reefer Madness (and other tales from the American underground)' - Eric Schlosser.

It's really well-written and very clearly shows the stupidity and contradictory nature of America's drug laws in relation to cannabis.

I vote yes to legal marijuana, but not other drugs. :)

suggested reading: 'Reefer Madness (and other tales from the American underground)' - Eric Schlosser.

It's really well-written and very clearly shows the stupidity and contradictory nature of America's drug laws in relation to cannabis.

I vote yes to legal marijuana, but not other drugs. :)
cheers for the advice :)
i suggest watching the documentary-movie called "Grass", narrated by Woody Harrleson, explaining the history of cannabis use from the begginings of prohibiton (and the evil lies & propoganda they employed to give the herb its current negative social stigma) all the way through the decades to modern day. its an eye opener - even my flatmate, who doesn't smoke, said he was shocked by it and supported legalisation after watching it!


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007JGGJ/qid=1113495646/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-8627070-4251801

cheers for the advice :)
i suggest watching the documentary-movie called "Grass", narrated by Woody Harrleson, explaining the history of cannabis use from the begginings of prohibiton (and the evil lies & propoganda they employed to give the herb its current negative social stigma) all the way through the decades to modern day. its an eye opener - even my flatmate, who doesn't smoke, said he was shocked by it and supported legalisation after watching it!


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007JGGJ/qid=1113495646/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-8627070-4251801
there is reference to the stupid stigmatising propoganda in the book as well. that the wide spread use of pot in mexican communities and by jazz musicians (jazz being a 'black' movement) led, in part to its not being socially acceptable.

hear that! standing against the legalisation of marijuana is racist :eek:
you know who you are..... :D

hear that! standing against the legalisation of marijuana is racist :eek:
you know who you are..... :D
:eek: brilliant!

*runs to the Houses of Parliament with a megaphone ;) *

yeah, unfortunaltey without regulation the marijuana industry could turn into such a Tobacco Industry Mk II - while i am generally more in favour of government intervention (PC figures in sig) i think this is one area where regulation is absolutley necessary to prevent monopolisation (if that is a word :p) and the firms gaining too much power over govt policy (as per the current tobacco industry), especially as this is a new market and can obviously benefit from economies of scale.
i can't think of another way to stop monopolies forming in this new market other than regulation, and this method seperates the growers and retailers which essentially means the best of both worlds - high competition and low power with regard to the retailers, and large competative growers gaining from economies of scale, but regulated to ensure quality and they don't abuse their (allowed) oligopoly position/power to raise prices unfairly and harm the consumer.
and of course, people should be allowed to grow it themselves (in fact, we're smoking a shitload of a friends' homegrown at the mo :D ) and there should be provision for 'social supply' - sale of weed to your mates (already an issue covered in the downgrading of marijuana from B to C class drug last year)

Do you know how the Netherlands organises itself?

Since they seem to have juggled the various concerns pretty well (That is keeping big business from dominating).

Though I don't know how much government intervention and regulation there is in that market.

suggested reading: 'Reefer Madness (and other tales from the American underground)' - Eric Schlosser.

It's really well-written and very clearly shows the stupidity and contradictory nature of America's drug laws in relation to cannabis.

I vote yes to legal marijuana, but not other drugs. :)

So many books, so little time :(

Have you seen the film Reefer Madness (which I assume is where the book took its title from)?

People think I'm taking the piss when I tell them to watch it. I'm not, I tell them to watch it since I think most of the arguements against cannabis haven't got any more coherent or any less absurd since that wonderful piece of anti-drug propaganda was made.

i suggest watching the documentary-movie called "Grass", narrated by Woody Harrleson, explaining the history of cannabis use from the begginings of prohibiton (and the evil lies & propoganda they employed to give the herb its current negative social stigma) all the way through the decades to modern day. its an eye opener - even my flatmate, who doesn't smoke, said he was shocked by it and supported legalisation after watching it!


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8627070-4251801

Ooh, I heard about that. It was on TV ages ago but I missed it :(

Definately want to watch it, but budget contraints limit the films I can buy.

Cannabis should be legalized but some laws should be implemented for the safety of the public just like for alcohol consumption. (i.e. Driving while impaired)
No more taxes!
that is why it is not legal. the liberals want to get their sticky fingers in everyone elses business. if a liberal dosent benefit from something then they dont want it thats just the way it is.

YES YES YES it should be legal, get rid of unneeded arrests and wasting tax payers dollars on "REHABILITATION"

Do you know how the Netherlands organises itself?
Since they seem to have juggled the various concerns pretty well (That is keeping big business from dominating).
Though I don't know how much government intervention and regulation there is in that market.
not in any great detail, but i have read that the growers are large scale, producing in massive greenhouses around 5 harvests per year. from my own observations when i was there i figured that the retail of cannabis (coffeeshops) were indipendent retailers - not chains. of course i could be wrong but this is how i understand they do it over there, and i think its a system that could work quite well over here :)
as for regulation, i don't know how they do it, but i know how i would do it :D


D
Ooh, I heard about that. It was on TV ages ago but I missed it :(

Definately want to watch it, but budget contraints limit the films I can buy.
it is sooo worth watching. download or rent it! :)

Cannabis should be legalized but some laws should be implemented for the safety of the public just like for alcohol consumption. (i.e. Driving while impaired)
No more taxes!
that is why it is not legal. the liberals want to get their sticky fingers in everyone elses business. if a liberal dosent benefit from something then they dont want it thats just the way it is.

YES YES YES it should be legal, get rid of unneeded arrests and wasting tax payers dollars on "REHABILITATION"

I'm not sure I agree with your reason it's illegal . . . the liberals don't like it? They want to get their fingers in everyone elses business? I would advise you to listen more closely to politics in the future. Conservatives fight against mj, usually on social grounds. On economic grounds, a lot of them like it. Liberals fight for mj, on social grounds. On economic grounds, there is a mixed reaction.

And what about date-rape drugs? Those aren't commonly used by people on their own bodies; should they be legal as well?
If people want to use them on their own bodies, why not?

Hell, isn't it already illegal to slip someone alcohol in their drink? Or say, ground up sleeping pills without their knowledge? Those are legal substances.

You don't think cannabis, you smoke it ...

sorry, i know i'm lame....

You don't think cannabis, you smoke it ...

sorry, i know i'm lame....
I think cannabis
I have done all my life
:p

I don't think it should be legal because it can cause schizophrenia, which I think is pretty serious. (although i admit that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, which is also really bad). Maybe it should be legal for people with terminal illnesses, 'cause they're suffering horrible pain, and would die soon.

I don't think it should be legal because it can cause schizophrenia, which I think is pretty serious. (although i admit that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, which is also really bad). Maybe it should be legal for people with terminal illnesses, 'cause they're suffering horrible pain, and would die soon.
it doesn't cause schizophrenia, but it makes it worse if you already have it.

Legalise it man... Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to toke.

I don't think it should be legal because it can cause schizophrenia,

I thought that it increases the chances for somebody predisposed to schizophrenia to fall victim to it.

And that it takes a lot to do this.

It is a bit like saying that cars shouldn't be legal since they cause car crashes.

which I think is pretty serious. (although i admit that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, which is also really bad).

No, it increases the risk of developing cancer.

i really should use this as my sig...


http://www.hlj.me.uk/NS/DSC03163%20b.jpg

made when stoned, for stoners :D

Most people tend to forget that cannabis is already taxed in some states of the US. This is from the times when it was still legal.
I can live with the compromise that we have in Germany. The police is strongly advised not to arrest consumers and people carrying small amounts (small amount varies from state to state).

It's similar to this in Canada. We even have pot cafe where people openly smoke pot, that cops have turned a blind eye to. Every Canada Day, in Nova Scotia, we have a simutanious protest day called "Cannabis Day", where tons of people gather in an area and openly smoke pot. Cops drive by all the time and don't even bother anyone at the event. They've decided that the marijuana situation has spiraled out of control and it's no longer worth arresting the casual user. I've been caught by cops a few times and each time they let me go, claiming that I don't have enough for them to make a fuss over. Of course they grilled me asking me where I got it and I just told them some guy I met in the washroom of a bar, that I didn't know their name. One time, they even handed me back the bag of weed. Now I wouldn't want to chance this all the time, as there are the cops who still go by the book and would arrest me for possession. I'm just lucky I haven't ran into any of them yet.

What are SSRIs?
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. They're prescribed as anti-depressants and are pretty popular both over and under the counter.

Unfortunately their effects are also dangerously catalyzed by several off-the-shelf drugs, including cough syrup and decongestants.

SSRIs and MDMA(ecstasy) have the exact same chemical effect on your brain's Serotonin levels. When used together, they prevent ANY Serotonin from being reabsorbed or metabolised, and that's not good. It's kind of like draining all the oil from your car and then trying to drive it.

Also it could turn into tobacco industry mk II, with big business ultimately monopolising it (de facto), since they can easily out produce home growers. I say de facto since to be pedantic the big tobacco companies don't have a 100% monopoly, a handful of people grow their own tobacco.

One of the primary reasons that the US has Big Tobacco is because of the difficulties in growing tobacco. Tobacco requires a huge amount of labor to produce, meaning that the tobacco industry due to big business efficiency can cheaply manufacture it. However, cigarette tobacco is some of the worst tobacco on the market, so while their production is high, the quality is low.

However, marijuana is relatively easy to grow. Hell, the reason it is called weed is because it used to grow as a weed throughout the US. It was frequently found growing on the side of the road. So in the case of weed, big business has less of an advantage. Additionally, if big business did try to get into the weed industry, if like the tobacco firms it produced a lower quality product, but at high volume, it would seem that many might stick to local sources, where they can get a high quality product and not pay too much more.

I don't think it should be legal because it can cause schizophrenia.

That's outrageous!
It is?
Absolutely.
I think Optunia has a point.
Stop that!
Stop what?
You're always doing that, mother. Can't you just leave me alone?
Someone has to protect you.
But I've always been the one protecting you, mother, covering for you. You know that.
I've had enough.
Put the knife down, mother!
:D

One of the primary reasons that the US has Big Tobacco is because of the difficulties in growing tobacco. Tobacco requires a huge amount of labor to produce, meaning that the tobacco industry due to big business efficiency can cheaply manufacture it. However, cigarette tobacco is some of the worst tobacco on the market, so while their production is high, the quality is low.

Well I did question if it would happen. But didn't realise it was relatively hard to grow so concentrated on the fact that Cannabis cultivation is quite popular anyway, and would very probably grow if decriminalised.

However, marijuana is relatively easy to grow. Hell, the reason it is called weed is because it used to grow as a weed throughout the US. It was frequently found growing on the side of the road. So in the case of weed, big business has less of an advantage. Additionally, if big business did try to get into the weed industry, if like the tobacco firms it produced a lower quality product, but at high volume, it would seem that many might stick to local sources, where they can get a high quality product and not pay too much more.

Didn't realise that was why if was called weed. I thought (with practically no evidence which is why I haven't ever said this aloud or written it) that it was a hangover from when it was seriously propaganderised, that is it was called weed since it was very commonly used and hard to get rid off. A social weed rather then an agricultural one. Though your reason makes more sense.

i really should use this as my sig...


http://www.hlj.me.uk/NS/DSC03163%20b.jpg

made when stoned, for stoners :D

*tokes and inhales deeply*
You rock!
*humming*
Oh. and it should be legal.
*continues humming*

I don't think it should be legal because it can cause schizophrenia, which I think is pretty serious. (although i admit that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, which is also really bad). Maybe it should be legal for people with terminal illnesses, 'cause they're suffering horrible pain, and would die soon.

Alcohol can poison you in high doses, so why is it legal? Cases of marijuana users getting schizophrenia is very rare. With the number of people in Canada, 47% of people admitting to smoking it once in their lives, you'd think our country would be filled with schizo's.

hey i dont care if i get skitzophrenia i get it but im still gonna smoke dope till the day i die.. i dont see a problem with it other than the shits fucking expensive like 50 bucks for a 1/4 here... thats sadder than hell :( but whatever works right