NationStates Jolt Archive

It will probably never happen, but what do you think and why?

I think it will happen, eventually. Either that or we'll make fairly equivalent drugs, like alcohol and nicotine, illegal.

The only practical thing I can see blocking it is that there is currently no test that will determine if you are *currently* high on marijuana. The tests they use will still be positive up to a month after smoking it. Thus, they could not determine if you were driving/working under the influence.

Drugs are, as a general rule, stupid. That being said, it's not the government's job to regulate what other people choose to ingest.

Of course, DUI and DWI should be extended to all drugs that impair a person, since it constitutes reckless endangerment.

Hmmm...difficult.
From a personal point of view, I would say yes. But then, that would have no effect on me, as I don't live in America.

It was banned mainly because of the lobbying of DuPont and another paper manufacturing company (I forget which one) in the 1930s against this 'dangerous' drug, which, completely coincidentally, can be used to make better quality paper...

Since then there's been a major negative propaganda campaign against it (marijuana? Sounds a bit...well...Mexican, doesn't it? What do you think middle class America's opinion of the Mexicans was in the 1930s?). So it is extremely likely to be legalised.

One possible argument is the massive tax revenue the government could make off cannabis if it were legalised. This is true, they could. It would also probably guarantee better quality weed for people who do smoke it, especially if the government regulated its growth.

However, what about the effects on productivity? If you're allowed to smoke cannabis in your breaks, you're going to be stoned when you come back to work, making your productivity lower. American industry would go downhill, possibly even falling into a recession. I personally think that's as good a reason as any for not legalising it - the world economy, to an extent, depends on America. If the American economy goes into a recession, the world economy is likely to follow. Then no one will legalise weed.

So on a personal level, I think it should be legalised, everywhere. Let me smoke it when and where I please. Realisitically, no I don't think it should be legalised.

I think it will happen, eventually. Either that or we'll make fairly equivalent drugs, like alcohol and nicotine, illegal.

The only practical thing I can see blocking it is that there is currently no test that will determine if you are *currently* high on marijuana. The tests they use will still be positive up to a month after smoking it. Thus, they could not determine if you were driving/working under the influence.

There is actually a very simple test to see if someone is high. All it requires is your finger and their attention. You have them watch your finger while you move it from one side of their head the other. Normally the eyes will smoothly follow the finger while high the eye will jump to follow the finger. This method hasn't failed me yet.

I also think that it should be legalized.

legalise it already. ditto for all the other psychotropics (mushrooms, PCP, salvia divinorum, LSD, MDMA, DMT, etc)

physically addictive drugs such as meth, cocaine, heroin, etc should still be tightly controlled, because they detract one's ability to choose for him/herself.

then again, cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine, so go figure.

learn more: erowid's vault (http://www.erowid.org/)

for the record, marijuana is far less socially damaging than alcohol. how many MJ wife beaters have you heard about? what about alcohol?

i rest my case.

as for legalising for recreational use -- why would there be any problem with that? why are we so uptight about people relaxing and having fun?

starbelt jumpgate (http://www.starbelt.com)

However, what about the effects on productivity? If you're allowed to smoke cannabis in your breaks, you're going to be stoned when you come back to work, making your productivity lower.
Why not just apply the same rules as you would about drinking on your break?

I say no. These are extremley addicting drugs that make people spacey. I think that the country would crumble.

Yes.

If we allow drugs that are in many cases even MORE dangerous (such as Tobacco and Alcohol) to be ingested, why can't we allow Marijuana to be ingested? Also, if we legalize pot, we can take all the money we spend trying to get pot-heads and spend it on getting coke-fiends.

Sure, why not. Just as long as people don't try to drive or operate heavy equipment on it I don't have a problem with it.

I say no. These are extremley addicting drugs that make people spacey. I think that the country would crumble.
There is no chemical in weed that causes addiction.

Why not just apply the same rules as you would about drinking on your break?
Bad comparison.

How much can you drink in an hour's lunch break? Or rather, how much would you? Off one spliff, I know I won't be able to do any productive work (in my case essay-writing, as I'm a student) for a good few hours. Probably until the end of the working day if I had an office job. If I went for a few drinks at lunch, I'd still be able to work when I come back to the office.

I would like to see pepper spray and tasers legalized for recreational use.

I think that you should be able to legally carry and use them on people who are willing. :)

I say ban all drugs. They are harmful and addictive. Besides, you can have fun using other, safer ways. Soccer (football to those in the UK), NS, video games, basketball... tons of ways.

Legalize it all. If the parents want, let the 12 year olds shoot up heroine.

Personal freedom no matter what the cost.

I say ban all drugs. They are harmful and addictive. Besides, you can have fun using other, safer ways. Soccer (football to those in the UK), NS, video games, basketball... tons of ways.
Yeah, I knew this guy who had an insulin habit so bad he had to shoot up several times per day. He tried to kick, but went into withdrawl and died.

I say ban all drugs. They are harmful and addictive. Besides, you can have fun using other, safer ways. Soccer (football to those in the UK), NS, video games, basketball... tons of ways.
I agree. There are many ways to spend your time that don't involve drugs.

I say no. These are extremley addicting drugs that make people spacey. I think that the country would crumble.
Marijuana is less adictive than coffee, only slightly more adictive than a quality foot rub.

Some notes. First, I don't believe in the taxing thing-I don't know why I wouldn't continue to get it more or less the same way I get it now. I can see if they make private sales still illegal and taxed sales are much cheaper, but I trust my hippie friends more than I do Phillip Morris, and once legalized I can grow it in my closet or backyard. In fact, I think one of the more reasonable methods of legalization is to allow personal growth.

However, we spend millions, if not billions chasing down and jailing people who want to smoke a j, eat a snack and watch some tv. There is no record of marijuana smokers being violent, at worst they over-estimate the quality of food and movies. It is a giant waste of money and law enforcement resources that could be applied elsewhere...I don't know, like actual security. (And that bullshit 'drugs support terror' campaign a while ago? The only crime my drug money supports is maybe the occasional unsolicited mural.)

As for the decrease in productivity argument, that couldn't be more ridiculous. I'm reminded of the ad where the surgeon is about to operate and takes a toke. No, I don't want the surgeon operating stoned any more than I want him operating drunk or on NyQuil. Why wouldn't usual vault rules apply? Legalization wouldn't mean that you can work and drive stoned any more than alchohal being legal means those things. Absolutely ridiculous.

The collapse of society? Amsterdam is still standing, and thier only real problem is the tourist smokers.

What it comes down to is an excessive expenditure of resources that returns a neglegable, if any, gain. Marijuana legalization makes good sense for the country at large.

I say legalize it, and if not make Alcohol and Ciggarettes illegal. One of the main reasons for outlawing it to begin with is because In 1926 there were way to many Mexicans coming into America and with them they brought pot. So Our clever government put 2 and 2 togethor and came up with 86 and made pot illegal. Great plan, eh? I say make all drugs illegal on the job site. No doing anything other than eating on the job site. Marijuanna should be legalized so you can use it at home or vacations ect.

It will probably never happen, but what do you think and why?
Yes it will. Marijuana laws in thie country will be repealed in our lifetime.

I agree. There are many ways to spend your time that don't involve drugs.
While this may be true, that doesn't suddenly make it the governnment's perogative to tell me which chemicals are OK for me to ingest and which aren't. If Marijuana [or any other drug] had the magical capacity to inflict physical harm on other folks, the concept of banning it and other drugs would be slightly more legitimate. Such as it is, the damage it causes ot others is purely emotional, and there's no way on either side of hell we could possibly legislate against everything that caused emotional damage to others even if we wanted to.

In short, people make bad decisions. Many of the politicians we have in office today experimented with drugs in the past, which means they're familiar with their effects and have a firsthand knowledge of the damage they're capable of. Should they be the only ones with the freedom to learn from their mistakes?

Marijuana is less adictive than coffee, only slightly more adictive than a quality foot rub.

Some notes. First, I don't believe in the taxing thing-I don't know why I wouldn't continue to get it more or less the same way I get it now. I can see if they make private sales still illegal and taxed sales are much cheaper, but I trust my hippie friends more than I do Phillip Morris, and once legalized I can grow it in my closet or backyard. In fact, I think one of the more reasonable methods of legalization is to allow personal growth.

However, we spend millions, if not billions chasing down and jailing people who want to smoke a j, eat a snack and watch some tv. There is no record of marijuana smokers being violent, at worst they over-estimate the quality of food and movies. It is a giant waste of money and law enforcement resources that could be applied elsewhere...I don't know, like actual security. (And that bullshit 'drugs support terror' campaign a while ago? The only crime my drug money supports is maybe the occasional unsolicited mural.)

As for the decrease in productivity argument, that couldn't be more ridiculous. I'm reminded of the ad where the surgeon is about to operate and takes a toke. No, I don't want the surgeon operating stoned any more than I want him operating drunk or on NyQuil. Why wouldn't usual vault rules apply? Legalization wouldn't mean that you can work and drive stoned any more than alchohal being legal means those things. Absolutely ridiculous.

The collapse of society? Amsterdam is still standing, and thier only real problem is the tourist smokers.

What it comes down to is an excessive expenditure of resources that returns a neglegable, if any, gain. Marijuana legalization makes good sense for the country at large.

A voice of reason in the darkness.

Bad comparison.

How much can you drink in an hour's lunch break? Or rather, how much would you? Off one spliff, I know I won't be able to do any productive work (in my case essay-writing, as I'm a student) for a good few hours. Probably until the end of the working day if I had an office job. If I went for a few drinks at lunch, I'd still be able to work when I come back to the office.

Some people can have one drink and be completely unproductive. Some can smoke a dime-bag of weed and still be able to be productive.

Most companies ban drinking on company time at all. If you are under the influence of alcohol at work, you can be fired. I see no reason that the same couldn't be applied for marijuana.

Legalize it all. If the parents want, let the 12 year olds shoot up heroine.

Personal freedom no matter what the cost.
Beat me to it.

A voice of reason in the darkness.

Kill it. :p

Marijuana is less adictive than coffee, only slightly more adictive than a quality foot rub.

The Government loves Ciggarettes (which happen to be more addictive then heroin) but they can't stand Marijuanna...>.< Idiots...

Damn Conservatives :sniper:

Bad comparison.

How much can you drink in an hour's lunch break? Or rather, how much would you? Off one spliff, I know I won't be able to do any productive work (in my case essay-writing, as I'm a student) for a good few hours. Probably until the end of the working day if I had an office job. If I went for a few drinks at lunch, I'd still be able to work when I come back to the office.
Bad comparison back on ya. Smoking a spliff to your dome is akin to pollishing that six pack.

Most jobs, save for the three martini lunch fatcat jobs, won't let you come back buzzed from lunch. And if they where able to handle that then they'd be able to handle a few dudes spliting a bowl. Just like alchohal there are different levels of tolerance. One or two beers would leave me a sloppy mess, but a bowl of the sticky icky would send me back focused and read to do one thing really really well. But just becuase I say that doesn't mean I'd do it on my lunch, drunk drivers say they are good drivers when drunk. Doesn't make it okay.

The original comparison is valid. It would be treated no different than any other intoxicant that is legal.

Kill it. :p

I got him! :sniper:

Freedom, in some cases, is bad. If those politicians know of their effects, why put more people through them? We know that they are bad when it comes to effects. Thus, it is logical that we make them illegal.

Besides, why would someone be against illegalizing all drugs?

Yeah, I knew this guy who had an insulin habit so bad he had to shoot up several times per day. He tried to kick, but went into withdrawl and died.

Ouch.

*zing* ... but ouch ...

Freedom, in some cases, is bad.

No. Personal liberty is never a bad thing. Never.

The Government loves Ciggarettes (which happen to be more addictive then heroin) but they can't stand Marijuanna...>.< Idiots...

Damn Conservatives :sniper:
I'd say it's bi-partisan assholery here. I don't remember a Democrat since Carter running on a legalization campaign. You only get that from the Libertarians and the Greens.

I'd say it's bi-partisan assholery here. I don't remember a Democrat since Carter running on a legalization campaign. You only get that from the Libertarians and the Greens.

I suspect Carter was more Libertarian than he let on. He was also a party loyalist, so ... *shrug*.

Freedom, in some cases, is bad. If those politicians know of their effects, why put more people through them? We know that they are bad when it comes to effects. Thus, it is logical that we make them illegal.

Besides, why would someone be against illegalizing all drugs?
Well, because asprin can help you survive during a heart attack, for one...

Freedom, in some cases, is bad. If those politicians know of their effects, why put more people through them? We know that they are bad when it comes to effects. Thus, it is logical that we make them illegal.

Besides, why would someone be against illegalizing all drugs?
In fact drugs have such a painful and negative affect on people that they don't use them. Oh wait.

No. Personal liberty is never a bad thing. Never.

If someone has the personal freedom to go kill people at random, Steal things, Rape people, and do what ever the fuck they please Personal Liberty isn't a good thing. There are idiots out there waiting to do so. Anarchy is not the answer.

I suspect Carter was more Libertarian than he let on. He was also a party loyalist, so ... *shrug*.

Yeah if he had addmited he was a Libertarian, Congress would do everything in their power to screw things up for him. He had to play along.

Well, because asprin can help you survive during a heart attack, for one...

Good example...

Freedom, in some cases, is bad. If those politicians know of their effects, why put more people through them?
Because last time I checked, I'm not Bill Frist. Just because these people might know what these substances can do does not grant them the license to make my decisions for me. By the same token one could argue that politicans should be aware of the dangers of reckless spending, therefore we should ban credit cards. Your argument is more tedious than logical, and it leads down some very dangerous paths.

We know that they are bad when it comes to effects. Thus, it is logical that we make them illegal.
You missed my point entirely. Freedom means the ability to make the right choices and profit from them--or to make the wrong ones and fail. People who make bad decisions will be penalized by reality far before our politicians can ever get to them.

Besides, why would someone be against illegalizing all drugs?
For the same reason that "illegalizing" isn't a word. It doesn't make any goddamn sense. Besides, as it has already been pointed out, those resources could be put to better use tracking and combatting real crime, like the dickless sons of bitches who vandalized my car last night. If our precinct wasn't so busy tracking down and harassing various college students whose crime is no greater than advising their friends to watch How High, perhaps someone might have caught these people.

If someone has the personal freedom to go kill people at random, Steal things, Rape people, and do what ever the fuck they please Personal Liberty isn't a good thing. There are idiots out there waiting to do so. Anarchy is not the answer.

Personal liberty means do whatever the fuck you want with yourself. When it involves someone else, that is no personal liberty.

If someone has the personal freedom to go kill people at random, Steal things, Rape people, and do what ever the fuck they please Personal Liberty isn't a good thing. There are idiots out there waiting to do so. Anarchy is not the answer.

PERSONAL Liberty.


Let me try to explain. Personal Liberty is about freedom at the expense of nobody else. Freedom at the expense of another's is NOT liberty.

The effects of alcohol and tobacco are dangerous, yet they're legal. Hmmm...

Legalize drugs and treat them like you would any other mind-altering substance like beer. That right there will put an end to much of the crime, since prices will drop and the local heroin-fiend won't have to mug the nice old lady for her purse to shoot up.

Yes it should be legalized... along with all drugs.

I want an end to this black market that keeps cannabis prices so high :(

Those of you that want to keep drugs illegal are part of a huge problem (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html)

PERSONAL Liberty.


Let me try to explain. Personal Liberty is about freedom at the expense of nobody else. Freedom at the expense of another's is NOT liberty.

Oh in which case i'm all for it. As long as your decisions don't affect others... But if you're allowed to do whatever you want to yourself what if it affects your family/friends ect. Mental health is it considered ok then? If not i take it suicide ect. arn't allowed? Explain please.

The effects of alcohol and tobacco are dangerous, yet they're legal. Hmmm...

Legalize drugs and treat them like you would any other mind-altering substance like beer. That right there will put an end to much of the crime, since prices will drop and the local heroin-fiend won't have to mug the nice old lady for her purse to shoot up.

Yeah but who's to say legalizing it will make it any cheaper? What if the government regulates that? If they make private sales illegal people will have to keep the prices high to keep it worth it.

While the link in post #42 is clearly a bit colored [even though I agree with most of it], it raises an interesting point. A lot of drug crusaders love to dream that prohibition makes marijuana more difficult to obtain, but this is simply not the case--since you don't see drug dealers checking ID. When I was a wee lad, a pack of cigarettes was a bit harder to come by than a dime sack of weed. I never got away with trying to buy cigarettes, but I developed a daily marijuana habit by age 16.

Also, because of the enormous profits drug prohibition creates, you can wipe out an entire cartel and one will simply rise to replace it almost overnight. The struggle against drugs will always intensify, but it will never end. People will continue to do what they want with their bodies until they're either imprisoned or dead. Neither option should be the aim of government policy in this context.

Oh in which case i'm all for it. As long as your decisions don't affect others... But if you're allowed to do whatever you want to yourself what if it affects your family/friends ect. Mental health is it considered ok then? If not i take it suicide ect. arn't allowed? Explain please.
Both your family and friends choose to be around you. If they don't like what you do they dont 'have' to be around you.

Oh in which case i'm all for it. As long as your decisions don't affect others... But if you're allowed to do whatever you want to yourself what if it affects your family/friends ect. Mental health is it considered ok then? If not i take it suicide ect. arn't allowed? Explain please.
Drugs aren't the only thing that cause emotional damage to others. One's emotional state should not be the concern of government policy; not in this case or any other.

Legalize it all. If the parents want, let the 12 year olds shoot up heroine.

Personal freedom no matter what the cost.

Does this include personal freedom to kill? Personal freedom to rape?

Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous. It damages your brain, impairs productivity, and is generally harmful. The government is supposed to protect its people- that includes protecting its people from themselves.. And those who have mentioned Amsterdam, remember this: since drugs are a "forbidden fruit" in the US, legalizing them all at once (or, probably, even in stages) would not be pretty.

As long as live around people, they will be affected by your actions. Therefore Personal Liberty can't ever be real.

Oh in which case i'm all for it. As long as your decisions don't affect others... But if you're allowed to do whatever you want to yourself what if it affects your family/friends ect. Mental health is it considered ok then? If not i take it suicide ect. arn't allowed? Explain please.

That's a gray area and I can see both sides of that argument.

Besides, mental health is not exactly my strong point. :)

We all have personal freedom to do whatever we want to do. Smoke, eat, kill, sit, work, rob, watch tv, jump off a cliff. We also have laws that give us consequences for breaking the laws. Yet, we are free to break the law or live by the law. If I chose not to work to support my family but stay home and do all sorts of activities to increase their self esteem and encourage their learning, or if I chose a job that causes me to be away from home so that my family is supported, but never sees me - how can it be determine which is worse?

Drinking is legal, but causes lots of social issues and crime.

Drug trafficking causes lots of crime, death; and puts money into the hands of the criminals and corrupt governments. Drug addiction is a problem, recreational drug use is no different from a couple of beers or a couple of cocktails.

There will never be a good answer to these types of issues.

Yeah but who's to say legalizing it will make it any cheaper? What if the government regulates that? If they make private sales illegal people will have to keep the prices high to keep it worth it.

Because now that it's legal, supply in any drug is going rise dramatically, since not only are shipments not being intercepted, those who deal in drugs (and use them) arn't being carted off to jail. The smart dealer will decrease prices to increase sales and his profits. Those who want to stay competative will lower their prices as well.

Plus since it's legal drugs will lose some of their luster. Why is it you think many teens under 21 go out drinking and consume vast quantities?

Alcohol and tobacco are already regulated and their prices arn't outlandish. Besides, regulation means less chances of very nasty shit getting put in the coke and such. People died 60 times more often of alcohol poisoning during the Prohibition then after for that reason.

Does this include personal freedom to kill? Personal freedom to rape?

Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous. It damages your brain, impairs productivity, and is generally harmful. The government is supposed to protect its people- that includes protecting its people from themselves.. And those who have mentioned Amsterdam, remember this: since drugs are a "forbidden fruit" in the US, legalizing them all at once (or, probably, even in stages) would not be pretty.
That post you responded to was just tad bit sarcastic. Also your ideas on weed really show that you have no idea what you are talking about. The Valevictorian of my graduating class smoked a lot of weed. He also got a full ride to a really good university. Which for him shows that it hardly had a negative effect on his productivity or memory. Also the protecting people from themselves is not the governments job and should not be there job. Why don't they just make stupidity illegal, I mean stupid people would need to be protected from themselves. Also your idea that people would go crazy if drugs were made legal is a bit ridiculous. Just cause someone is 21 in the US does not mean they drink and the same would be, more or less the same, for drugs.

If someone has the personal freedom to go kill people at random

Killing someone and smoking pot are not the same thing.

However, people do have the freedom to rape, kill, and steal. Why do you think it happens so much? If that person gets caught, however, then they must accept the consequences.

There should be no consequences for smoking a joint and/or doing a line of coke. That doesn't hurt anyone any more than sitting in a restaurant and eating a cheeseburger does.

Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous.

Source?

Does this include personal freedom to kill? Personal freedom to rape?

Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous. It damages your brain, impairs productivity, and is generally harmful. The government is supposed to protect its people- that includes protecting its people from themselves.. And those who have mentioned Amsterdam, remember this: since drugs are a "forbidden fruit" in the US, legalizing them all at once (or, probably, even in stages) would not be pretty.

If the government is there to protect us from ourselves, then why is alcohol and tobacco legal?

I agree it shouldn't be legalized in just one go, but a gradual process will end this 'War on Drugs' in a far more effective manner then the millions wasted already.

Does this include personal freedom to kill? Personal freedom to rape?
Like pretty much every prohibitionist before you, you're blatantly ignoring the line between actions that affect one's own body and actions that affect other people. "Personal Freedom" does not include the ability to harm others in any iteration. To suggest that it does or would is simply twisting definitions to meet your preconceived agenda.

Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous. It damages your brain, impairs productivity, and is generally harmful. The government is supposed to protect its people- that includes protecting its people from themselves..
It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. The implications of this task are far too wide-reaching and invasive for even you to defend. Not everyone lives a perfect life: deal with it. Some people adopt lifestyles you may not approve of: deal with it.

And those who have mentioned Amsterdam, remember this: since drugs are a "forbidden fruit" in the US, legalizing them all at once (or, probably, even in stages) would not be pretty.
Bullshit. The people who use drugs will continue to use drugs regardless of current or future legislation. Hell, I've been arrested for possession before and that only made me more jaded to the concept of prohibition: there's nothing like having an overzealous officer stick a Glock in your face because you choose to ingest a certain plant.

Granted, you may see use increase slightly on the onset, but it should be noted that more teenage Americans smoke pot than Dutch children of the same age, if the statistics I've been shown are to be believed. Alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean our society is about to collapse as a result. Having been a regular user of both for some time, I can safely say that the buzz you get off booze is pound for pound much more intense than a marijuana high. Sure, booze kills some folks, and it leads to a lot of poor decision-making, but that's life: deal with it.

I firmly believe Cannabis should be made legal. It could be taxed to make a prophet. It should be illegal to drive under the influence, of course. It is much easier to get addicted to tobacco than it is to Marijuana. No one has ever died with Marijuana as the direct cause since it is proven to be almost impossible to overdose on it. On the other hand, one can get Alcohol poisoning much easier and there are more Alcoholics than potheads.

No, I think it should be illegal in the US - as it's painfully obvious that Americans wouldn't know how to use it in any way other than to completely fuck themselves up.

*lights up*

There should be no consequences for smoking a joint and/or doing a line of coke. That doesn't hurt anyone any more than sitting in a restaurant and eating a cheeseburger does.

Bad example...

There should be some kind of regulation. And if it's not legalized it should at least be decriminalized.

No, I think it should be illegal in the US - as it's painfully obvious that Americans wouldn't know how to use it in any way other than to completely fuck themselves up.

*lights up*

:D *waits patiently for the pass*

Further to my previous post, marijuana should be legal absolutely everywhere other than the US.

That's one way to boost international travel & tourism.

There should be some kind of regulation. And if it's not legalized it should at least be decriminalized.

Regulation? Oh, maybe a little. Let's say you can't buy it if you're under 18 and you can't drive under its influence, but stop regulations there.

If I want to sit in my living room and smoke myself into a coma, I should have that absolute right.

:D *waits patiently for the pass*
Wait no longer, Keru.

*passes smilingly*

This is a Sativa/Indica cross. I figured you'd have an appreciation for its' burn, its' aroma, and its' flavour.

Enjoy.

Further to my previous post, marijuana should be legal absolutely everywhere other than the US.

That's one way to boost international travel & tourism.
You want it legal in Northern California, then the rest of the world can know what real weed is like. And what it'd do to our economy makes me smile...

That post you responded to was just tad bit sarcastic. Also your ideas on weed really show that you have no idea what you are talking about. The Valevictorian of my graduating class smoked a lot of weed. He also got a full ride to a really good university. Which for him shows that it hardly had a negative effect on his productivity or memory. Also the protecting people from themselves is not the governments job and should not be there job. Why don't they just make stupidity illegal, I mean stupid people would need to be protected from themselves. Also your idea that people would go crazy if drugs were made legal is a bit ridiculous. Just cause someone is 21 in the US does not mean they drink and the same would be, more or less the same, for drugs.


First of all, I don't appreciate your accusations that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. I've had drug education in my school (far too much if you ask me) and it is generally accepted that marijuana is not condusive to your good health.
Secondly, there are always anomalies such as your Valedictorian weed-smoking friend. It's known as standard deviance. Most who smoke weed, however, will not enjoy the same "full ride."
As to your comment on stupidity, it practically is. It is mandantory for students to attend school for the majority of their time as a minor, for the purpose of preparing one for life, effectively getting rid of stupidity. Unfortunately, this obviously doesn't always work.
Finally, the point of outlawing alcohol until 21 is that 21-year-olds will assumedly have more mental maturity and be less prone to overdose or abuse alcohol. Removing age limits on dangerous drugs all at once would indeed be chaotic in the short term, and liekly for a considerable amount of time thereafter.

Personal liberty means do whatever the fuck you want with yourself. When it involves someone else, that is no personal liberty.

Yep. I believe in that and its also partly why I am against Marijuana use.

ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!!! And it's not because I'm a burnt out stoner hippie because I don't even smoke the shit anymore!!! MAKE IT LEGAL!!!

I firmly believe Cannabis should be made legal. It could be taxed to make a prophet. It should be illegal to drive under the influence, of course. It is much easier to get addicted to tobacco than it is to Marijuana. No one has ever died with Marijuana as the direct cause since it is proven to be almost impossible to overdose on it. On the other hand, one can get Alcohol poisoning much easier and there are more Alcoholics than potheads.

No there is a way to get sick from ingesting to much Marijuanna, You need to ingest your weight times approximatly 7 to get mildly sick.

You want it legal in Northern California, then the rest of the world can know what real weed is like. And what it'd do to our economy makes me smile...
I know what real weed is like. Hell's Bells, man - I've been smoking a bowl every day for twenty-plus years. And I cultivate on a seasonal basis. Trust me when I tell you California isn't the end-all, be-all you're making it out to be.

This is a Sativa/Indica cross. I figured you'd have an appreciation for its' burn, its' aroma, and its' flavour.


Awesome. Woodsy Indica pungeancy combined with sweet, sweet Sativa. Better than a 30 year single malt.

I know what real weed is like. Hell's Bells, man - I've been smoking a bowl every day for twenty-plus years. And I cultivate on a seasonal basis. Trust me when I tell you California isn't the end-all, be-all you're making it out to be.

Lol is that a confession :O

The stuff is not too bad alone...but it is a gateway to others.

Trust me when I tell you California isn't the end-all, be-all you're making it out to be.

Agreed. Give me a Canadian(BC) Indica or an Afghani Sativa any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Hell, I'd smoke sticky Mexican skunk before I'd smoke that east indies imported catnip flavored hybrid they grow in NoCal.

Lol is that a confession :O

The stuff is not too bad alone...but it is a gateway to others.

No gateway.. People who drink coffee are just as likely to use other drugs thna if they used marijuanna.

First of all, I don't appreciate your accusations that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. I've had drug education in my school (far too much if you ask me) and it is generally accepted that marijuana is not condusive to your good health.
Except for all those medical professionals that actually believe it can be very helpful.
Secondly, there are always anomalies such as your Valedictorian weed-smoking friend. It's known as standard deviance. Most who smoke weed, however, will not enjoy the same "full ride."
Alright, you're on. (Carl Sagan is my favorite in this catagory-damn smart, total head.) Prove that they are outliers, lets see the study.
As to your comment on stupidity, it practically is. It is mandantory for students to attend school for the majority of their time as a minor, for the purpose of preparing one for life, effectively getting rid of stupidity. Unfortunately, this obviously doesn't always work.
Stupid =/= functional. School is to function, stupid is another case.
Finally, the point of outlawing alcohol until 21 is that 21-year-olds will assumedly have more mental maturity and be less prone to overdose or abuse alcohol. Removing age limits on dangerous drugs all at once would indeed be chaotic in the short term, and liekly for a considerable amount of time thereafter.
Why would you believe that marijuana wouldn't have similar limitations to alchohal and cigarettes? Your 'worst case scenario as only scenario' argument is faulty.

In response to a few other posts I missed,

My source is the Health Classes I was required to take throughout Middle School and High School.

In my own defense as to the murder and rape remarks, I would like to note that the post I quoted clearly said "at any cost." I believe this includes others.

Like I just said to Hiberniae, people at age 18 for tobacco and 21 for alcohol are presumably older and wiser. While this unfortunately is not always the case, it once again apparent that the government is indeed trying to protect its people.

Also, I'd just like to point out that the government must strive to help people from themselves- even if it obviously can't in most cases. If the government just gave up, it would worsen the problem. Even though the government cannot make people perfect, it can at least try and encourage them by way of education.

I probably won't be available to apply for a few hours as I have a fair amount of homework. Any additional comments, please send me a telegram or just wait and suffer.

Agreed. Give me a Canadian(BC) Indica or an Afghani Sativa any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Hell, I'd smoke sticky Mexican skunk before I'd smoke that east indies imported catnip flavored hybrid they grow in NoCal.
Your thinking of SoCal weed...

The stuff is not too bad alone...but it is a gateway to others.
In your opinion. But I don't believe we need to legislate away substances on the basis of there being addictive personalities out there. People need to take responsibility for their recreational activities, i.e. stop blaming the drugs, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take the rap for your damned annoying addictive personality disorders, thereby leaving the rest of us - those fully capable of leading full & productive lives while still enjoying responsible, recreational drug use. It's not that hard to do; you just have to not be some damn fool who ought to have known better.

In your opinion. But I don't believe we need to legislate away substances on the basis of there being addictive personalities out there. People need to take responsibility for their recreational activities, i.e. stop blaming the drugs, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take the rap for your damned annoying addictive personality disorders, thereby leaving the rest of us - those fully capable of leading full & productive lives while still enjoying responsible, recreational drug use. It's not that hard to do; you just have to not be some damn fool who ought to have known better.

Are you god?

No gateway.. People who drink coffee are just as likely to use other drugs thna if they used marijuanna.
Mmm, coffee - my number two drug-of-choice. Many are the Friday nights I've gotten whacked out of my skull on coffee, then stayed up 'til 4 AM posting here all night long... that and watching classic Outer Limits episodes on DVD.

Are you god?
Let's say I'm an avid admirer of the handiwork.

Drugs are, as a general rule, stupid. That being said, it's not the government's job to regulate what other people choose to ingest.

Of course, DUI and DWI should be extended to all drugs that impair a person, since it constitutes reckless endangerment.

agreed. i don't have the desire to ever do drugs, but everyone should have the right to... besides, alcohol and tobacco are just as bad...

agreed. i don't have the desire to ever do drugs, but everyone should have the right to... besides, alcohol and tobacco are just as bad...

Agreed.

Hmmm...difficult.
From a personal point of view, I would say yes. But then, that would have no effect on me, as I don't live in America.

It was banned mainly because of the lobbying of DuPont and another paper manufacturing company (I forget which one) in the 1930s against this 'dangerous' drug, which, completely coincidentally, can be used to make better quality paper...

Since then there's been a major negative propaganda campaign against it (marijuana? Sounds a bit...well...Mexican, doesn't it? What do you think middle class America's opinion of the Mexicans was in the 1930s?). So it is extremely likely to be legalised.

One possible argument is the massive tax revenue the government could make off cannabis if it were legalised. This is true, they could. It would also probably guarantee better quality weed for people who do smoke it, especially if the government regulated its growth.

However, what about the effects on productivity? If you're allowed to smoke cannabis in your breaks, you're going to be stoned when you come back to work, making your productivity lower. American industry would go downhill, possibly even falling into a recession. I personally think that's as good a reason as any for not legalising it - the world economy, to an extent, depends on America. If the American economy goes into a recession, the world economy is likely to follow. Then no one will legalise weed.

So on a personal level, I think it should be legalised, everywhere. Let me smoke it when and where I please. Realisitically, no I don't think it should be legalised.

except that you can be fired for being drunk at work, so why not fired for being high?

except that you can be fired for being drunk at work, so why not fired for being high?

Agreed, good point. Regulation will be important in the workplace and public areas.

Mmm, coffee - my number two drug-of-choice. Many are the Friday nights I've gotten whacked out of my skull on coffee,

We used to play this game with espresso. We'd pick a card game like poker or nertz or something that required some concentration or coordination and drink espresso after espresso until we were all a quivering mass of fleshy jello trying very, very hard to play cards.

First one to pee loses.

Are you god?

I think he might be.

I say ban all drugs. They are harmful and addictive. Besides, you can have fun using other, safer ways. Soccer (football to those in the UK), NS, video games, basketball... tons of ways.

NS, video games, ect, all become more enjoyable while stoned. :D

As for productivity, I'd like to know who it was who decided that was what the workplace was all about. Speaking as one who works for a living, I'll tell you this: there's greater productivity to be had from a happy workforce. And as a working person whose job description is peppered all throughout with the word 'creative', a joint here and there would tend to maximize productivity, not hinder it. At all.

We used to play this game with espresso. We'd pick a card game like poker or nertz or something that required some concentration or coordination and drink espresso after espresso until we were all a quivering mass of fleshy jello trying very, very hard to play cards.

First one to pee loses.

I actually fell out fo my seat laughing.

Does this include personal freedom to kill? Personal freedom to rape?

Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous. It damages your brain, impairs productivity, and is generally harmful. The government is supposed to protect its people- that includes protecting its people from themselves.. And those who have mentioned Amsterdam, remember this: since drugs are a "forbidden fruit" in the US, legalizing them all at once (or, probably, even in stages) would not be pretty.

Civil liberty= do what you want not at the expense of others. read posts before you before posting, please!

NS, video games, ect, all become more enjoyable while stoned. :D
Why do you think I hang around here - other than to FIGHT EVIL, that is?

As for productivity, I'd like to know who it was who decided that was what the workplace was all about. Speaking as one who works for a living, I'll tell you this: there's greater productivity to be had from a happy workforce. And as a working person whose job description is peppered all throughout with the word 'creative', a joint here and there would tend to maximize productivity, not hinder it. At all.

Agreed.

Why do you think I hang around here - other than to FIGHT EVIL, that is?

Which evil?

One joint = 5 beers effect on the mind. >.>

We used to play this game with espresso. We'd pick a card game like poker or nertz or something that required some concentration or coordination and drink espresso after espresso until we were all a quivering mass of fleshy jello trying very, very hard to play cards.

First one to pee loses.
I used to play Euchre, but only on acid. And I never lost. Even though I never actually did know (and still don't know, to this day) how it's played. I'd just resign myself to throwing cards at random.

Legalize it all.


no there are drugs that are dangourous addictive and just plain stupid(eg. heroin crack coke lsd meth etc.) so that makes me yes on some occasions

Freedom, in some cases, is bad. If those politicians know of their effects, why put more people through them? We know that they are bad when it comes to effects. Thus, it is logical that we make them illegal.

Besides, why would someone be against illegalizing all drugs?

The effects of most drugs are largely short-term and positive. Only a small minority of people who try drugs ever wind-up having problems with them. Who are you or the government to tell grown adults what they may or may not put in their own bodies. We're not children and we don't need the state to be our mommy/daddy figure.

My source is the Health Classes I was required to take throughout Middle School and High School.

That's not a source. Peer-reviewed studies are sources. That's indoctrination.

One joint = 5 beers effect on the mind. >.>

Proof?

I'd just resign myself to throwing cards at random.

Then you do know how to play. :D

Of course it should be legal. SImilar regulations to alcohol would prevent any danger from people operating heavy machinery etc. If it makes people lazy, they lose their jobs and are replaced, no harm to the economy. The only reason it is a gateway drug (if it is at all) is because it is illegal, so you have to get it from drug dealers who also seel harder stuff. and also, since everyone is told from a young age that drugs are evil, addictive and kill you, when they try pot and find that these things are not true, they think maybe other drugs are harmless too. Categorise it with tobacco and alcohol and all will be well.

Oh yeah its not addictive either, at least physically. Psychologically I suppose it is, but so is championship manager. Addiction is a side effect of stupidity.

no there are drugs that are dangourous addictive and just plain stupid(eg. heroin crack coke lsd meth etc.) so that makes me yes on some occasions

Wait ... heroin doesn't kill people, people kill people ...

LSD and coke, like a firearm, can either be a useful tool or a dangerous weapon depending on whose hands it is in.

no there are drugs that are dangourous addictive and just plain stupid(eg. heroin crack coke lsd meth etc.) so that makes me yes on some occasions

LSD isn't in any way addictive... :rolleyes:

One joint = 5 beers effect on the mind. >.>

And on that note, I'm going to go knock back a six-pack's worth of pot and play some Elder Scrolls IV.

Wait ... heroin doesn't kill people, people kill people ...

LSD and coke, like a firearm, can either be a useful tool or a dangerous weapon depending on whose hands it is in.

Wrong. Heroin DOES kill. Coke can to. >.>

And in no way is it a tool.

LSD is indeed a useful tool, but it's esoteric enough a tool that most people really wouldn't have a use for it. For example, I never found an applicable use for cocaine, certainly no use for myself. I found the effects of cocaine that other people seemed to covet I derived from another source altogether - coffee. Lucky for me coffee is a drug that the American FDA smiles upon. But pop round my pad and there'll be not a speck of Peruvian flake to be had.

If people were allowed to be responsible, to make responsible choices based on solid impartial information instead of being raised up in ignorance and denial, perhaps we'd see fewer junkies in our towns and cities.

*edit: at the tender age of twelve, I'd already charted out the first few legs of my drug experimentation - in the public library medical reference section. I'm proud to report that I have researched every substance I have ever ingested. And not ashamed to admit it, either.

Wrong. Heroin DOES kill. Coke can to. >.>

And in no way is it a tool.

Heroin doesn't kill people.

People taking too much heroin kills themselves.

But, if heroin were legally sold and regulated it would be much more difficult to overdose.

One joint = 5 beers effect on the mind. >.>
How the hell is that measured? And who says you have to smoke that whole j to your dome (ya stingy bastard, share the love)?

If people were allowed to be responsible, to make responsible choices based on solid impartial information instead of being raised up in ignorance and denial, perhaps we'd see fewer junkies in our towns and cities.

Children will be raised on impartial information, without the prejudices and ignorance of their parents, when pigs soar through space in magical pigstys and our whole government ascends into Heaven together, free of all sin.

There is actually a very simple test to see if someone is high. All it requires is your finger and their attention. You have them watch your finger while you move it from one side of their head the other. Normally the eyes will smoothly follow the finger while high the eye will jump to follow the finger. This method hasn't failed me yet.

nah, that test would be for someone DRUNK,

I say no. These are extremley addicting drugs that make people spacey. I think that the country would crumble.

You must not know what it feels like to be high, because you don't get all trippy and spacey maaan

Yes.

If we allow drugs that are in many cases even MORE dangerous (such as Tobacco and Alcohol) to be ingested, why can't we allow Marijuana to be ingested? Also, if we legalize pot, we can take all the money we spend trying to get pot-heads and spend it on getting coke-fiends.

Thank you!

marijuana is medicine

I would like to see pepper spray and tasers legalized for recreational use.

I think that you should be able to legally carry and use them on people who are willing. :)

thats a dumbass comparison, and actually they are legal to carry, and if anouther dumby wants you to try it you can

I say legalize it, and if not make Alcohol and Ciggarettes illegal. One of the main reasons for outlawing it to begin with is because In 1926 there were way to many Mexicans coming into America and with them they brought pot. So Our clever government put 2 and 2 togethor and came up with 86 and made pot illegal. Great plan, eh? I say make all drugs illegal on the job site. No doing anything other than eating on the job site. Marijuanna should be legalized so you can use it at home or vacations ect.

this is true, but pleeease dont make alcohol illegal, its the only thing i have left

Children will be raised on impartial information, without the prejudices and ignorance of their parents, when pigs soar through space in magical pigstys and our whole government ascends into Heaven together, free of all sin.
What I'm getting at is this, Telfor: when I began my research into marijuana, psilocybin, LSD, mescaline, cocaine and stimulants, the impartial information I required was but a bicycle ride away to the (small, local) public library.

In my teen years, my family relocated and I found myself in a new town, and I immediately located the local library and esconced myself in their collection. To my chagrin, I found that their entire section dealing with drugs consisted of Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say NO to Drugs', and the viciously paranoiac yellow-peril tome of the twenties 'The Black Candle'. You see, the parents in my new neighbourhood had successfully demanded the removal from the stacks every single other book they had on the topic (these were the 80s of course - the height of the last dubious war on a noun) some scant few months before I arrived.

And you know, not one of the kids I knew back in my hometown made a wrong move around a drug they didn't know. In my adoptive hometown, I can think of three kids who didn't live to see graduation. Fuck's sake, there were kids I went to school with camping out in the railyards shooting lighter fluid into their veins. Huffing solvents. An educated drug user is a responsible drug user. These people never thought at all about what they were putting into their bodies. They abdicated all responsibility - and when it came time to pay the piper, who or what did they blame? Themselves? No. Always the drugs.

Well, if they'd ever bothered to learn the difference between a good drug and a bad drug, if they'd taken the time to know themselves intimately enough to understand what their minds and bodies needed, or how much or how little to give it, maybe it'd've been different. Having had no ready access to impartial information in order to form educated opinions and make responsible choices for themselves, these people were essentially set up to take a very nasty fall.

Looking back on it, it really was about excess. Drinking to excess to get 'drunk'. Toking too much to get 'stoned'. I never understood it; I might have chosen my substances from a broader palette than most, but I've rarely - if ever - used any substance to the extent that I 'got out of my head'. I like my head just fine, thanks. I smoke dope to get high, not stoned. I drink to get tipsy, not drunk. And when I take mushrooms it's because I have a reason to, not 'cause it's Saturday night.

*edit: and in order to forestall any other dumb comments like the one you'll find directly below this post, bear in mind that this was during the 80s, the Internet was still Science Fiction for the most part, and a 'site' was where you pitched a tent and built a campfire. Local libraries were far more important than Asbena seems to feel they are now.

So...not in the public library? EXCUSES!

They can check on any site themselves. Its VERY easy from home to. Just know that they were stupid in the first place, not the communities fault.

So...not in the public library? EXCUSES!

They can check on any site themselves. Its VERY easy from home to. Just know that they were stupid in the first place, not the communities fault.
Dude- this was the 80s. No Internet.

Dude- this was the 80s. No Internet.

NO INTERNET? NOT POSSIBLE! AAAHHHH!!!!!!

*grips head, runs to the nearest cliff, and jumps off, all while screaming bloody murder.*

nah, that test would be for someone DRUNK,
Really? because I am pretty sure that my friends were SMOKING WEED and not DRINKING ALCOHOL when I did that to them. And right after I posted that, I remembered it and tried it on my roommate who happened to have just toked up. So please tell me I am wrong on my substances again.

My source is the Health Classes I was required to take throughout Middle School and High School.

And you do know that the ONDCP is largely responsible for those courses, right? Do you even know what the ONDCP is?

That would be like me saying the Bush Administration is my source for indicating a rousing success in the Iraq conflict. You're basically admitting that you're buying into everything that you were force-fed throughout grade school, which doesn't make for a very credible source. Those drug "Education" courses are [i]designed to present only one side of the argument, and we're required to take them because our state and federal politicans honestly believe that such an indoctrination will eventually lower drug use. DARE has actually been the subject of some scrutiny lately, as it is widely believed that [gasp!] it isn't actually doing anything. It's just another waste of our law enforcement officers' time.

If NORML ran the country, you'd probably be telling us the exact opposite. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Think for yourself for a change, for the love of god.

I think it should. I think doing drugs is idiotic, and I'm past that point of my life however it's no different then some other form of Prohibition.

It didn't work on liquor during the days of Al Capone and the laws aren't working now.

The poll that started this thread is a bit narrow-minded. I don't see why we shouldn't have ALL illegal drugs legalized. I know. I know. There's a whole slew of concerns about chemicals and side effects and how people may or may not act, blah, blah, blah.

I personally have never tried anything outside of alcohol. The closest I've come to trying pot was second-hand smoke at concerts. I have, for the most part, always been around people as they were either coming down from a high, or freaking out to get their next one. I can't see me ever letting myself get like that. But the one thing over all others is that to do drugs in the first place is a personal decision that never should have become a government concern.

Legalize all of them. Tax them. Use the money from the taxes and the money we'll be saving on the so-called "War on Drugs" and start curing some deseases. Anyone caught committing any kind of non-violent crime while under the influence of drugs gets a mandatory five-year sentence with hard labor. Anyone caught committing any kind of violent crime while under the influence of drugs will be sentenced to whatever a judge and jury decide on. Death sentences would be carried out immediately.

Sounds fair to me.

I was just wondering if there are any non-biased studies on the effects of drug use that someone can link?

Mainly cause i'm lazy about googling stuff, and i think its relevant to the thread.

One in ten people on the roads is drunk. Why would we want another one in ten high?

If we knew the health effects of tobacco 500 years ago it wouldn't be legal. If we knew the health effects of alcohol 10,000 years ago it wouldn't be legal. Why would we want to add to the health costs of both the users and survivors? Why would we want to add to the lost production? Drugs cost everyone, even legal drugs cost everyone.

Why would we want to add to our mistakes.

We can't change the past now that tobacco and alcohol are part of the culture. But why would we add to the costs of the culture.

I was just wondering if there are any non-biased studies on the effects of drug use that someone can link?

Mainly cause i'm lazy about googling stuff, and i think its relevant to the thread.
This is why the well-stocked library really is an invaluable resource. You're guaranteed a higher standard of factuality, overall. The info on the net reads like badly-printed pamphlets handed out on street-corners. From both sides of the divide.

Marijuana should without a doubt be legal

One in ten people on the roads is drunk. Why would we want another one in ten high?

If we knew the health effects of tobacco 500 years ago it wouldn't be legal. If we knew the health effects of alcohol 10,000 years ago it wouldn't be legal. Why would we want to add to the health costs of both the users and survivors? Why would we want to add to the lost production? Drugs cost everyone, even legal drugs cost everyone.

Why would we want to add to our mistakes.

We can't change the past now that tobacco and alcohol are part of the culture. But why would we add to the costs of the culture.
Why do you place such a high standard on productivity? What's the value of it to you? Do you believe I share in your appraisal?

what do I think well if they make it legal good for them won't affect me at all either way so yeah:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

One in ten people on the roads is drunk. Why would we want another one in ten high?

If we knew the health effects of tobacco 500 years ago it wouldn't be legal. If we knew the health effects of alcohol 10,000 years ago it wouldn't be legal. Your argument is based on a bad assumption or two or three. Where is your evidence of increased DUI due to legalization? Perhaps that one in 10 person would rather be high and therefore no net impact on driving issues would be seen. Given that most people who aren't smoking because it's illegal are essentially law-abiding, why would they suddenly decide to break the law and drive while high?

Eh, what legal authority would you be referring to? IIRC most criminalization of substances occurred in the late 18th and early 20th centuries and in the main had little to do with the health effects of the substance in question. The overriding exceptions (to the time frame) being certain religious proscriptions.

It should not be legal. It is a gateway drug to other harder drugs. It kills your intelligence. Also, I know someone whose grandmother was killed by someone driving under the influence of it. It is a harmful drug.

it's illegal? wow, wait...then... hmmm...

is it illegal still?

I agree with blue sparkles and that person who wrote the preceding post LOL

This is why the well-stocked library really is an invaluable resource. You're guaranteed a higher standard of factuality, overall. The info on the net reads like badly-printed pamphlets handed out on street-corners. From both sides of the divide.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Cannabis&btnG=Search

Most of the studies tend to be narrow and require membership to view fully, but they seem to be helpful and not that biased.

However, I do agree that a library is a much better source of info.

In response to a few other posts I missed,

My source is the Health Classes I was required to take throughout Middle School and High School.

If you really think you get accurate information about marijuana there, you are a very naive person, my friend. Marijuana is illegal, no? So do you really think that school curriculums approved by the government would say anything other than how "dangerous" it is?

As for your suggestion that those who smoke weed but do well are "outliers", I'm afraid you are flat-out wrong. Every school I have attended, be it high school, college, grad school, etc. has had students who smoked - some more often than others. And those who I have known who did so have ranged from being the mid-range of their class to the bottom. Those who actually let drugs get in the way of their achievements don't show up on the radar. But, truth be told, I can only think of two people, off-hand, who I know that haven't done it at some point.

Also, I'd just like to point out that the government must strive to help people from themselves- even if it obviously can't in most cases.

What if the government decides that sleeping on a waterbed is harmful? What if they decide that you marrying that person you like is harmful? What if they decide that wearing red is harmful?

Do you really think the government should have that type of power over you?

[quote

If the government stuck to [i]accurate education, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, they don't.

There is no chemical in weed that causes addiction.
Please please please please please, could someone give me a source on this, I am told this all the time, but I never get a source.

DARE has actually been the subject of some scrutiny lately, as it is widely believed that [gasp!] it isn't actually doing anything. It's just another waste of our law enforcement officers' time.

I still remember signing my little DARE paper saying I wouldn't drink before I was 21, would never smoke, and wouldn't do any illegal drugs.

Hehe.

It should not be legal.

O R'LY?

It is a gateway drug to other harder drugs.

It is a "gateway drug" only because it is illegal. As it is, a dealer who deals in marijuana and other drugs will often push you to try more. On top of that, the total lack of accurate education which equates marijuana to all other drugs makes those who try it think that everything about *every* drug must have been a lie.

It kills your intelligence.

Got any evidence of that? I've known lots of intelligent people. Almost all of them have, at some time, smoked weed fairly regularly.

Also, I know someone whose grandmother was killed by someone driving under the influence of it.

Most people know someone who was killed or injured because of a drunk driver too. Do you think we should make alcohol completely illegal? Do you know the history of what happened when we did?

It is a harmful drug.

It is as harmful as the user makes it, no more, no less. Caffeine is also harmful. So is alcohol and nicotine and even Benadryl, if you aren't careful.

Legalized, no. Decriminalized, hell yes. I am tired of watching lives ruined and new criminals created by the use of a harmless drug that hurts no-one and might actually directly benefit the fast food industry. The war on drugs is a bad joke in general and a black hole for funds better spent elsewhere.

And you do know that the ONDCP is largely responsible for those courses, right? Do you even know what the ONDCP is?

That would be like me saying the Bush Administration is my source for indicating a rousing success in the Iraq conflict. You're basically admitting that you're buying into everything that you were force-fed throughout grade school, which doesn't make for a very credible source. Those drug "Education" courses are [i]designed to present only one side of the argument, and we're required to take them because our state and federal politicans honestly believe that such an indoctrination will eventually lower drug use. DARE has actually been the subject of some scrutiny lately, as it is widely believed that [gasp!] it isn't actually doing anything. It's just another waste of our law enforcement officers' time.

If NORML ran the country, you'd probably be telling us the exact opposite. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Think for yourself for a change, for the love of god.

One question: What would the Office of National Drug Control Policy (which I do know of, thank you very much), and the government in general possibly have to gain by making marijuana illegal other than better general health for the country? The US government does not wish to make its people suffer. Many people seem to think the government is wrong in all of its doings unconditionally. Except for the well-publicized wrongdoings and inefficiencies of the government, the US generally does pretty well for its people. It's quite amazing how many people immediately forsake official government facts and figures in favor of more agreeable or more shocking facts and figures.
Who do you place your faith in: the long-standing US government, which, last I checked, was elected by the people, or a much smaller lobbyist group(NORML) representing only the views of one particular group?

It will probably never happen, but what do you think and why?

It certainly couldn't HURT the US... in fact, it may get the gun nuts to relax a bit. ;)

Marijuana should without a doubt be legal

My god ... or your god ... whatever ... we've just agreed on something.

One question: What would the Office of National Drug Control Policy (which I do know of, thank you very much), and the government in general possibly have to gain by making marijuana illegal other than better general health for the country? The US government does not wish to make its people suffer. Many people seem to think the government is wrong in all of its doings unconditionally. Except for the well-publicized wrongdoings and inefficiencies of the government, the US generally does pretty well for its people. It's quite amazing how many people immediately forsake official government facts and figures in favor of more agreeable or more shocking facts and figures.
Who do you place your faith in: the long-standing US government, which, last I checked, was elected by the people, or a much smaller lobbyist group(NORML) representing only the views of one particular group?

Look up the history on the congressional proceedings leading up to marijuana being made illegal. Not only was Congress flat-out lied to about the possible medical uses of the drug, but it was lumped in with much more dangerous drugs without question. It was seen as a "hippie" drug, and "hippies" were not seen as good aspects of society. These days, although these things are clear, the government certainly isn't going to admit it was wrong.

Notice that, even though the medical benefits of marijuana for cancer patients, glaucoma patients, and many others are now very well demonstrated and medical practitioners seek to put them into more general use, the federal government continues to leave it illegal across the board - and has been known to go into the homes of cancer patients and take the plants they are growing for medicinal purposes. Do you really think everything the government does is for the good of the people?

yes because when the US does it they'll get the UN drugs resolution wotsit overturned for it as well and so the rest of the (western, US arse-licking) world will follow suit.

Please please please please please, could someone give me a source on this, I am told this all the time, but I never get a source.
http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

There are many social issues to tackle when it comes to either legalizing or using laws to prosecute citizens for using marijuana.

On the one hand, by legalizing marijuana we no longer make criminals out of our rebellious youths. Let’s face it if we locked up everyone who smoked marijuana at some point in their lives, over half of the population would be in jail. That alone makes it ridiculous to continue persecuting. As drugs go it is a whole lot less harmful than anything else out there (although like cigarettes it does have carcinogenic properties when smoked). If we allow the consumption of alcohol then I see no problem with marijuana being allowed.

By legalizing and regulating, the legal sale and use of marijuana, you eliminate the predation of organized crime on society by that route. Before marijuana there was the prohibition of alcohol, when organized crime was concerned with making and smuggling booze. Legalizing alcohol really cut into organized crime. People are going to be less likely to be stoned at work because their boss will be able to smell it on them even more than they would alcohol (Even if they can’t smell a smart boss would still notice that the concession machines had been hit a little harder than normal).

Especially now that the War on Drugs has been undermined by pulling away resources to fight the War Terror, they need to focus on what’s important: hard drugs. Beer and marijuana aren’t the big problems of society (well maybe beer is but that’s another thread altogether). It’s the hard drugs that cause the most harm and do the most damage to its victims (although again to be honest the same could be argued of cigarettes and booze).

It’s a tough issue, but I think that marijuana would be best regulated the same way alcohol is. The criminalizing of our youth isn’t very profitable and providing a huge source of revenue for organized crime isn’t good for our society.

The Bruce

One question: What would the Office of National Drug Control Policy (which I do know of, thank you very much), and the government in general possibly have to gain by making marijuana illegal other than better general health for the country?
Absolutely nothing. That's one of the main reasons why prohibition cannot be allowed to continue: no one benefits from it. Also, the idea that prohibition is creating a "better general health" for this country is laughable at best. Like I said, the people who are going to do drugs are already doing them.

The US government does not wish to make its people suffer.
Many people seem to think the government is wrong in all of its doings unconditionally.
Not all, just most. The wide majority of government programs are horribly inefficient, and in the end they very rarely offer us significant returns on our investments. The War on Drugs has been one of the government's top three expenditures for a while now, and it has been a steadily growing priority since the DEA was lauched to distract the public from Nixon's various unscrupulous dealings in...1971 I believe. What have we got to show for it 35 years later? Marijuana is not only more potent, it's easier to get and it delivers outrageous profits to the gangsters that peddle it. Likewise, housing projects, educational reforms, and welfare initiatives have proven time and time again to be gigantic, festering money pits.

Except for the well-publicized wrongdoings and inefficiencies of the government, the US generally does pretty well for its people.
Compared to the rest of the world? Certainly. Objectively? We could be doing a lot better.

It's quite amazing how many people immediately forsake official government facts and figures in favor of more agreeable or more shocking facts and figures.
I'm sorry, but I've got no reason to trust a government report or a similar report from an organization like NORML. Both NORML and the US Government are organizations with agendas, and the media they release will always reflect that and it will always attempt to move that organization closer to fulfilling its goals. Anything else would simply be unprodcutive towards their desires. I don't trust the government's stats any more than I trust NORML's: I trust my mind. Not yours, not George Bush's, not Nixon's. [b]Mine. And its about goddamn time some of you folks developed the same kind of confidence.

Who do you place your faith in: the long-standing US government, which, last I checked, was elected by the people, or a much smaller lobbyist group(NORML) representing only the views of one particular group?
See above.

Also, it should be noted that just because a body is "elected" doesn't automatically mean they're right, and it sure as [i]shit doesn't mean they're to be trusted implicitly in any undertaking they should choose to enact. Bodies that have been elected by the people have been capable of some pretty rotten things in the past [and many are still continuing as we speak]. You seem to be implying that since they're the government, they should be trusted. Sounds a bit too Orwellian for my tastes.

Yes, possession and use that do not harm anyone other than those who willingly partake should be absolutely legal.

However, penalties and punishments for irresponsible and unsafe use (of any drug or other substance) that threatens the safety of others should be much more severe. Causing physical violence or harm to another person means a long stay inside a concrete cell. DUI means never touching a steering wheel again, after a long stay inside a concrete cell. I cannot tolerate the sort of wasteful nanny state that the "war on drugs" has produced. Neither will I tolerate those who cannot control themselves.

I don't mind Marijuana, I think it should be as legal as alcohol.

But I do think someone needs to do something about Ice. That stuff is nasty. Got the potential to be worse than Heroine or even Crack.

I don't mind Marijuana, I think it should be as legal as alcohol.

But I do think someone needs to do something about Ice. That stuff is nasty. Got the potential to be worse than Heroine or even Crack.Is that a new drug? Or do you really mean frozen water? :confused:

(Oh, and I don't think female heroes are bad at all ;) )

Is that a new drug?
Well, sorta new. It's very 'in' at the moment.

And as I said, what it does to people is really nasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1593168.htm

Marijuana should be illegal. No form of smoking should be encouraged, and tobacco should be phased out. Smoking isn't cool. That shit can fuck you up, seriously. My dad has a stroke from tobacco, and I'd be surprised if marijuana was any less unhealthy.

Marijuana should be illegal. No form of smoking should be encouraged, and tobacco should be phased out. Smoking isn't cool. That shit can fuck you up, seriously. My dad has a stroke from tobacco, and I'd be surprised if marijuana was any less unhealthy.

How does one justify telling me how I can or cannot hurt myself?

banning POSSESSION of anything is an absurd waste of resources.
banning the sale and mass productions of some things can and does make a certain amount of sense.

obviously it is ill advised to attempt to operate heavy machinery or engauge in activities requireing clear and immaginative thought under the influence of anything that impares judgement.

this is however, an entirely sepperate issue from possession.

if anything needs to be outlawed it is aggressiveness, beligerance, fanatacism, and the mass production and mass importing of fire arms and automobiles, along with munitions and fuel for either of them.

but not the personal hobby crafting of no more then three of any one kind of particular item.

=^^=
.../\...

There are some things that are hitting me in the argument on both sides (keep in mind, completely for the legalization). But in the interest of elevating the discourse, I'll do some devils advocate bit for the cons.

The organized crime link. Are you guys really buying your weed from organized crime? I'm getting it from hippies, skaters, graffiti artists, and slackers. They're getting it from hippie and burn out farmers or growing it themselves. With the exception of the graffiti artists the only crime any of these cats are doing is selling, growing or smoking weed. Again, I live in the Emerald Triangle, so maybe things are different here, but still...

We can't argue that because cigarettes and booze are worse and legal that weed should be legal, too. It's a logical fallacy and is just as much an argument that we should make booze and cigarettes illegal. It seems right, but it's not a good argument.

No ones done it here, but the "it comes from nature" one has always bugged me. So does hemlock, but I'm not smoking that anytime soon.

Most of the argument against has been handled soundly, the idea that it's harmful (interesting, because until states passed bills like California's 215 it hasn't even been legal to test marijuana...so, you know...) and it makes you stupid because, you know, "I totally know this guy who smokes the weed and is a total moron yada yada..." Because you met an idiot once does not make it empirical evidence of weed making you stupid.

Now there have been studies done, which do indicate what would seem like common sense, such as you don't want to do something like this in development, such as-
Impairments of human cognition and learning following chronic marijuana use are of serious concern, but have not been clearly demonstrated. To determine whether such impairments occurred, this study compared performance of adult marijuana users and non-users (N=144 andN=72, respectively) matched on intellectual functioning before the onset of drug use, i.e., on scores from standardized tests administered during the fourth grade of grammar school (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills). Subjects were given the twelfth grade versions of these tests (Iowa Tests of Educational Development) and other, computerized cognitive tests in successive test sessions. "Heavy" marijuana use (defined by use seven or more times weekly) was associated with deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression in the Iowa Tests of Educational Development and selective impairments in memory retrieval processes in Buschke's Test. The retrieval impairments were restricted to words that were easy to visualize. Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., "light" and "intermediate" marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition ("fuzzy" concepts) of a Concept Formation test.
I'll pull out two things, first-
"Heavy" marijuana use (defined by use seven or more times weekly) was associated with deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression in the Iowa Tests of Educational Development and selective impairments in memory retrieval processes in Buschke's Test. The retrieval impairments were restricted to words that were easy to visualize.
Important to not that no study yet has managed to establish these effects as permanent. But yes, it would seem that heavy use during developmental years is not a good idea. There are studies that prove the same thing about most drugs and alcohol, so this isn't surprising.

This, however, is:
Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., "light" and "intermediate" marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition ("fuzzy" concepts) of a Concept Formation test.

Didn't see that coming, did ya? I couldn't resist a little seeding on the side I'm on.

Most of the studies involve development and use, and the juicier ones are behind subscription walls.

So you can argue that you shouldn't give it to kids, but very few are arguing that (though it looks like moderate use might not be a bad idea...).

There, never say I didn't do anything for you.

Here (http://www.springerlink.com/(wrhmq055pgn52mmpanzry345)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,35,40;journal,286,702;linkingpublicationresults,1:100390,1) is where that came from.

How does one justify telling me how I can or cannot hurt myself?

Fine, go nuts. I don't mind it if you want to be unable to walk or talk.

Fine, go nuts. I don't mind it if you want to be unable to walk or talk.

It is incorrect to assume that my opposition to prohibition means I participate in, or want to participate in, recreational drug use. I don't and I never will. That said, I simply fail to see a justification for prohibiting an individual from hurting his or her own self.

(Edit: And I am well aware of the effects of smoking. I took a class a couple of years ago on the preparation of human cadaveric specimens for anatomical study. The individual I worked on had died of lung cancer. That class is one of the reasons why I do not and will never smoke. That class has also demonstrated to me that education and reasoned persuasion are far more effective tools than brute prohibition.)

One in ten people on the roads is drunk. Why would we want another one in ten high?

If we knew the health effects of tobacco 500 years ago it wouldn't be legal. If we knew the health effects of alcohol 10,000 years ago it wouldn't be legal. Why would we want to add to the health costs of both the users and survivors? Why would we want to add to the lost production? Drugs cost everyone, even legal drugs cost everyone.

Why would we want to add to our mistakes.

We can't change the past now that tobacco and alcohol are part of the culture. But why would we add to the costs of the culture.

There's evidence of people smoking sticky-icky long before alcohol was being made intentionally.

The Scythians were known to be fond of it.

There's evidence of people smoking sticky-icky long before alcohol was being made intentionally.

The Scythians were known to be fond of it.

Alcohol is inherently different from most other drugs. For one, it's basically an artform now. Smoking, tobacco or marijuana, doesn't even come close.

I live in the Netherlands, where it is legal. And I have to say, it's not that bad... I mean, if you don't legalize it you will only force it underground. And that could make it more dangerous than it has to be.

I'd say: legalize for more control.

I live in the Netherlands, where it is legal. And I have to say, it's not that bad... I mean, if you don't legalize it you will only force it underground. And that could make it more dangerous than it has to be.

I'd say: legalize for more control.
Lucky bastard...

Alcohol is inherently different from most other drugs. For one, it's basically an artform now. Smoking, tobacco or marijuana, doesn't even come close.
LOL, classic.:D
My only confusion, should I be laughing with you or at you...?:confused:

And on that note, I'm going to go knock back a six-pack's worth of pot and play some Elder Scrolls IV.

Ok i'm really hating you right now...

[QUOTE=Pythogria]Freedom, in some cases, is bad. If those politicians know of their effects, why put more people through them? We know that they are bad when it comes to effects. Thus, it is logical that we make them illegal.

freedom is *never* bad; freedom is the spirit's natural state. laws that limit personal freedom generate anger, because they violate natural law.

"we all know that they are bad when it comes to effects." -- have you ever tried the MJ? i bet you haven't... ;)

and so your 'logic' fails, because there are never just two opinions (black and white), but a whole kaleidoscope of colors in between.

whenever offered only two choices, immediately start searching for the 'third way' -- it's always there, somewhere... :cool:

Why do you place such a high standard on productivity? What's the value of it to you? Do you believe I share in your appraisal?
The point is use of drugs of all types has a cost to society as a whole. It is not a victimless act. When someone drugs and drives, they invade the rights of others. If they injure or kill someone, they directly effect those beyond themselves. When someone gets lung cancer or other preventable disease, it costs everyone in increased insurance costs and loss of productivity. When someone doesn't show for work because they were using some type of drug, that cost is added to the cost of product everyone buys. When someone has to take a 5 minute drug break every hour, that means they are losing 40 minutes of work (almost 1/8), added to cost. When someone comes to work with a hangover or high, they do not do their job at the top level, adding to tthe cost of production which is passed on to everyone. When someone is unable to work or even dies because of drug use, their families become dependent on the social safety net rather than contributing to society.

This all ripples through society. Society has an interest in things that have cost beyond the person doing the action.

> Marijuana has been proven to be dangerous.
> It damages your brain, impairs productivity, and is generally harmful.

really? i'd like to see the (unbiased) scientific data on this claim.

> The government is supposed to protect its people

really? i'll take personal responsibility for my own protection, thx.

> that includes protecting its people from themselves..

no. never. i will never trade security for personal liberty. not ever.

> since drugs are a "forbidden fruit" in the US, legalizing
> them all at once (or, probably, even in stages) would
> not be pretty.

yes, this is what happens when you work against nature... you build a crisis.

we are not children. we are informed adults who make rational decisions for ourselves (at least i do) -- and we take responsibility for our actions.

if we smoke a joint on the job, then we're pretty much gambling with our livelihood, but that's our choice.

but really, addiction is not the real reason drugs are outlawed. no, the real reason is what you fear most: social breakdown.

now let's think about this:

'hippies' who live a drug (MJ, mushrooms) lifestyle more or less disconnect from corporate society, no? they form organic farming co-ops, practice sustainable living, and are generally more in tune with their spiritual selves.

THIS is what corporate america fears. THIS is why psychotropics are outlawed.

god forbid anyone start thinking (and acting) in an environmentally sane manner -- no, sir, it's maximum productivity at ALL costs -- even at cost to our biosphere and personal liberties.

IT HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH!!

you rail about personal liberty at the expense of others... what do you think your government and corporations are doing???

"every good you produce is another chunk of your own DEATH" -- Slacker (the movie)

It will probably never happen, but what do you think and why?

All drugs everywhere should be legalised.

The point is use of drugs of all types has a cost to society as a whole.
No that's not the point, since it holds true whether they are legal or illegal.

It is not a victimless act. When someone drugs and drives, they invade the rights of others.
Which is a good argument in support of the premise 'there should be regulations prohibiting people from driving motor vehicles whilst under the the influence of psychoactive drugs.

If they injure or kill someone, they directly effect those beyond themselves.
Which is a good argument in support of the premise 'there should be regulations prohibiting people from injuring or killing others'.

When someone gets lung cancer or other preventable disease, it costs everyone in increased insurance costs and loss of productivity.
And when someone gets heart disease from eating to much fat, and not exercising adequately that costs us all in increased insurance costs and loss of productivity. Are you volunteering for the state health monitoring trial - if so the police will be around in the morning to check out your dietry and exercise plans for the day and to arrest you if they dont meet the approval of some committee over in Washington who decided for you what is the necessary dietry and exercise standards by which you must abide...

When someone doesn't show for work because they were using some type of drug, that cost is added to the cost of product everyone buys.
What about people who choose to not get enough sleep and turn up to work with less than optimal energy and concentration. Perhaps if we had 'lights out' police patrols ensuring everyone went to bed at some particular time we'd be more productive.
What about people who take time off because they want to go surfing, or just really cant be bothered and would rather stay home watching soapies or playing video games? Should we ban surfing, tv, and playing video games due to the potential for loss of productivity resulting in additional costs being added to products? I'm not certain NS is free from the stigma of productivity loss potential either...do you honestly believe no one has ever posted on NS during work time on work computers, and how much did that add to the last product you purchased.....
While we are here, what about loss of productivity due to illness caused by poor diet and/or insufficient exercies....or how about loss of productivity caused by injury resulting from over-exuburant exercise....how are we to both ban not exercising and ban exercising in order to insure against loss of productivity?
Evidently quite what is the justification for arresting and criminalising people in order to avoid some people paying a few cents more for some product they have chosen to buy?

When someone has to take a 5 minute drug break every hour, that means they are losing 40 minutes of work (almost 1/8), added to cost.
Employers allow this? Or are you suggesting they suddenly would allow it if marijuana were legal?

When someone comes to work with a hangover or high, they do not do their job at the top level, adding to tthe cost of production which is passed on to everyone.
Same is true if they came in having stayed up too late watching re-runs of the Twilight Zone on some obscure cable channel, wanna ban cable tv now? How about those people who stayed up playing hankie-pankie with their husband or wife when they should have been sleeping, gonna ban sex now? Good luck with that one....

When someone is unable to work or even dies because of drug use, their families become dependent on the social safety net rather than contributing to society.
Er, no, this is only true if they were dependent on the person who becomes ill or dies. As it happens it's no less true if the person dies while playing sports, crossing the road, driving down the road, or being attacked while walking down to the shops. Ought we now ban all those things too?

This all ripples through society. Society has an interest in things that have cost beyond the person doing the action.
If this principle applies and justifies a ban on drugs then it also requires the implementation of bans on everything from tvs to surf boards and walking to the shops, and also requires that we implement state regulated dietry and exercise standards enforced through police and state powers of arrest, along with a similar hours-of-sleep-per-night standard also enforcable through the police and legal system. That all sounds a bit silly doesnt it? That's because your rational is in fact a bit silly. Try applying it beyond drugs and it is provably daft....

I'm against laws and government in general, but that doesn't mean I lack opinion on the issue. Yes, it should be legalized. Marihuana is good for you.

1. Of the 421 chemicals in marijuana, only 61 are unique to marijuana. The chemicals are known as cannabinoids. One of them, delta-9 THC, produces the psychoactive effect and is the focus of most research. The other 360 chemicals in the marijuana plant are found throughout other natural substances.

2. The higher potency marijuana grown in the United States represents about half of all the marijuana consumed here. Because of it's higher potency many smokers use far less of it than less potent marijuana.

3. Differences in dosage and frequency of consumption render comparisons between marijuana and tobacco consumption invalid, despite similarity in the composition of their smoke. Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs. Heavy exposure of the lungs to irritation such as smoke increases the likelihood of lung cancer and other lung problems. Marijuana speeds the heartbeat and is unhealthy for people with high blood pressure or other cardiovascular ailments.

4. Marijuana does reduce the sperm count and obstruct sperm mobility in males within the normal range. These side-effects do not seem to affect human fertility, and are completely reversible thirty days after cessation of use. Marijuana, like other drugs, crosses the placenta. While the effects of this are unknown and there is no evidence that marijuana causes chromosome damage, we advise women to avoid the use of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs not prescribed by their physician during pregnancy and nursing.

5. The intoxicating chemical, THC, is broken down by the human metabolism after two or three hours in the body. The by-products of this chemical breakdown are referred to as metabolites. These metabolites are fat soluble, and take 21-30 days to leave the human body via the urine. These metabolites exert no psychoactive effect on the human body.

6. After reviewing all of the evidence, the Academy concluded: "There is not yet any conclusive evidence as to whether prolonged use of marijuana causes permanent changes in the nervous system or sustained impairment of brain function and behavior in human beings". "Interpretation of the evidence linking marijuana to 'amotivational syndrome' is difficult. Such symptoms have been known to occur in the absence of marijuana. Even if there is an association between this syndrome and the use of marijuana, that does not prove that marijuana causes the syndrome. Many troubled individuals seek an 'escape' into use of drugs: thus frequent use of marijuana may become one more in a series of conterproductive behaviors for these unhappy people".

7. "Cannabis and it's derivatives have shown promise in the treatment of a variety of disorders. The evidence is most impressive in glaucoma, where their mechanism of action appears to be different from standard drugs: in asthma.... and in the nausea and vomiting of cancer chemotherapy... Similar trials have suggested cannabis might also be used in seizures, spasticity, and other nervous system disorders".

http://www.uncletaz.com/marijuana/marieff.html

Legalise it without delay.

I'd rather have my cops cleaning my hometown from terrorists and childmolesters, than have 'em play ring around the rosie with some weedsmokers who don't do much harm. There's just so much police resources to go around - why waste 'em on what is essentially a victimless 'crime'?

Does this include personal freedom to kill? Personal freedom to rape?

yeah dude thats smart, you can go kill some people just because they legalized marijuana

Yep. I believe in that and its also partly why I am against Marijuana use.

how does me using pot matter to you

Yes I believe it should be legalized for recreational use and i have not smoked pot in 14 years.

I find absurd that booze and cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not.

I believe a number of things should be legal.
Gambling, Prostitution, Narcotics,----tax that stuff, regulate it, and let adults make adult choices.

I would like to see pepper spray and tasers legalized for recreational use.

I think that you should be able to legally carry and use them on people who are willing. :)

Hell yeah that will show you mate. Get him to sign the bottom of a contract then unfold it :D, boy is he in for it :p :)

If this principle applies and justifies a ban on drugs then it also requires the implementation of bans on everything from tvs to surf boards and walking to the shops, and also requires that we implement state regulated dietry and exercise standards enforced through police and state powers of arrest, along with a similar hours-of-sleep-per-night standard also enforcable through the police and legal system. That all sounds a bit silly doesnt it? That's because your rational is in fact a bit silly. Try applying it beyond drugs and it is provably daft....
So you are arguing for no regulation on anything.

There should be no speed limit.

There should be no driver's license. Let anyone any age, any health condition drive.

There should be no stop signs or traffic lights. Let the bravest take the lead.

Let anyone fly a plane. It's ony their neck and whoever is standing where they land.

There should be no burn laws. Set your trash on fire in the back yard on the driest, windiest day.

There should be no regulation of consumer goods. Let the buyer beware.

Doctors shouldn't be licensed. Let anyone proctice that wants to.

There should be no regulation of food or water. They are only chemicals like drugs.

There should be no regulation of the disposal of dead bodies. Set Grandma up on a chair on the front porch and let her rot.

There should be no regulation of pets. Let the dogs roam the streets in packs.

That all sounds a bit silly doesnt it? That's because your rational is in fact a bit silly. Try applying it beyond drugs and it is provably daft....

So you are arguing for no regulation on anything.
Out of curiousity is this just a very lame argument device or did you seriously interpret statements such as
Which is a good argument in support of the premise 'there should be regulations prohibiting people from driving motor vehicles whilst under the the influence of psychoactive drugs.
as arguing that there should be no regulation on anything?
If it is a really lame argument device, you should try to find another. If anyone is actually fooled by you stating that I am arguing something that I didnt argue and that actually contradicts what I did argue, then that person's opinion isnt worth much anyhow. If however it is the latter, I'm not sure what kind of help you need (reading and comprehension, basic logic and critical reasoning) but I suggest the sooner you get it the better for all involved.

That all sounds a bit silly doesnt it? That's because your rational is in fact a bit silly. Try applying it beyond drugs and it is provably daft....
It sounds exceedingly silly, but it isnt my rational. Nothing I have stated suggests or posits such a rational. Try again...:rolleyes:

Out of curiousity is this just a very lame argument device or did you seriously interpret statements such as
Which is a good argument in support of the premise 'there should be regulations prohibiting people from driving motor vehicles whilst under the the influence of psychoactive drugs.
as arguing that there should be no regulation on anything?
Umm... did you even bother to read the segment of your post that he quoted? The italicized segment above doesn't even appear anywhere in the argument Good Lifes was answering to. If anyone needs to try again, I think it's you.

I haven't been following this particular discourse long enough to be able to tell who's side I'm on, but it looks to me like you're not really even reading his post at all. God knows you did it to me enough.

BTW, isn't hemp one of the most useful plants on the planet? Can't you make just about everything from hemp, including biodiesel?

While we're keeping this silly taboo alive, we're depriving ourselves of that excellent material.

Umm... did you even bother to read the segment of your post that he quoted?
Yes, did you bother to read the post it was extracted from? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose not...

The italicized segment above doesn't even appear anywhere in the argument Good Lifes was answering to. If anyone needs to try again, I think it's you.
Yes it does, it just so happens that Good Lifes only quoted a portion of my argument.

I haven't been following this particular discourse long enough to be able to tell who's side I'm on,
I'm not convinced you followed it at all.

but it looks to me like you're not really even reading his post at all. God knows you did it to me enough.
I did his read post, just as I read any of your posts that I have replied to.

No, Zagat, I haven't followed it. That's what I just fucking said. Christ, do you understand anything other people write? The way you respond to people's posts it seems like you barely even bother.

I just noticed a disparity between what Good Lifes was responding to and what you were responding to. Read his post again, and you will notice that your italicized thesis does not even appear in the section he is responding to. I understand that he was only responding to a portion of your argument, but you seemed to be endicting him for responding improperly to a portion of your argument that he didn't even bother with. If that's the more important point you were attempting to make that's all well and good, but don't fault him for responding improperly to something when in fact he didn't respond to it at all.

Usually, when people ignore gigantic chunks of my posts [which happens a lot], I take it as a concession. The ignored points are seldom worth bringing up again. In this context, you're attempting to discredit Good Life's [admittedly slippery slope] reasoning by attempting to deflect his statements as referring to something else. If I could draw a picture, believe me, I would.

No that's not the point, since it holds true whether they are legal or illegal.
Legal drugs keep people healthy thus contributing to the society.


Which is a good argument in support of the premise 'there should be regulations prohibiting people from driving motor vehicles whilst under the the influence of psychoactive drugs.There are those regulations. People still drive drunk because it has become a part of the culture. Why make more things a part of the culture that will contribute to injury and death?


Which is a good argument in support of the premise 'there should be regulations prohibiting people from injuring or killing others'.
Exactly my point.


And when someone gets heart disease from eating to much fat, and not exercising adequately that costs us all in increased insurance costs and loss of productivity. Are you volunteering for the state health monitoring trial - if so the police will be around in the morning to check out your dietry and exercise plans for the day and to arrest you if they dont meet the approval of some committee over in Washington who decided for you what is the necessary dietry and exercise standards by which you must abide...There are increases in insurance costs that penalize all of us. So you are arguing that we should allow even more health risk just because we already have some?


What about people who choose to not get enough sleep and turn up to work with less than optimal energy and concentration. Perhaps if we had 'lights out' police patrols ensuring everyone went to bed at some particular time we'd be more productive. Let's hope they don't do it regularly.
What about people who take time off because they want to go surfing, or just really cant be bothered and would rather stay home watching soapies or playing video games? Should we ban surfing, tv, and playing video games due to the potential for loss of productivity resulting in additional costs being added to products? I'm not certain NS is free from the stigma of productivity loss potential either...do you honestly believe no one has ever posted on NS during work time on work computers, and how much did that add to the last product you purchased.....
Too much. They are stealing from all of us.

While we are here, what about loss of productivity due to illness caused by poor diet and/or insufficient exercies....or how about loss of productivity caused by injury resulting from over-exuburant exercise....how are we to both ban not exercising and ban exercising in order to insure against loss of productivity? Everything has gains and losses. Exercise has more gains than losses. It's a net gain for society. We should find a way to give bonus' for it.

Evidently quite what is the justification for arresting and criminalising people in order to avoid some people paying a few cents more for some product they have chosen to buy? Money, health, death, ..........


Employers allow this? Or are you suggesting they suddenly would allow it if marijuana were legal? Every cig blower steals from the company every cig break. You want to add another layer?


Same is true if they came in having stayed up too late watching re-runs of the Twilight Zone on some obscure cable channel, wanna ban cable tv now? How about those people who stayed up playing hankie-pankie with their husband or wife when they should have been sleeping, gonna ban sex now? Good luck with that one.... Personally, I find a little sex helps people.


Er, no, this is only true if they were dependent on the person who becomes ill or dies. As it happens it's no less true if the person dies while playing sports, crossing the road, driving down the road, or being attacked while walking down to the shops. Ought we now ban all those things too? Drugs are an accident? Well they can CAUSE an accident, but are they an accident in themselves?


If this principle applies and justifies a ban on drugs then it also requires the implementation of bans on everything from tvs to surf boards and walking to the shops, and also requires that we implement state regulated dietry and exercise standards enforced through police and state powers of arrest, along with a similar hours-of-sleep-per-night standard also enforcable through the police and legal system.Again, some things have a net gain over minimal loss.

That all sounds a bit silly doesnt it? That's because your rational is in fact a bit silly. Try applying it beyond drugs and it is provably daft....
Sure glad you answered your own arguements.

Now are you satisfied that I gave answers to silly statements.

BTW, isn't hemp one of the most useful plants on the planet? Can't you make just about everything from hemp, including biodiesel?

While we're keeping this silly taboo alive, we're depriving ourselves of that excellent material.
This is true. Actually rope is made of hemp that has been bred to have no drug. The problem is it looks exactly like the drug kind so it would be hard to tell which is growing.

Hemp has also been used for bio-diesel and in many medicines.

BTW, isn't hemp one of the most useful plants on the planet? Can't you make just about everything from hemp, including biodiesel?

While we're keeping this silly taboo alive, we're depriving ourselves of that excellent material.
And imperiling our precious productivity...! Next to our bodily fluids, nothing matters more than sweet productivity...

Think of the shareholders - !

And imperiling our precious productivity...! Next to our bodily fluids, nothing matters more than sweet productivity...

Think of the shareholders - !
Big fan of industrial hemp (half my clothing is made from it-best material).

Speaking of shareholders, I've always felt that if we let the shareholders of Nabisco and Hostess what they'd make once weed was legal it'd be legal tommorrow...

Oh, sweetie, you just cant quit when you're already so darn far behind....funniest of all, it's all your own work! Ok, I do have a modicum but sympathy, but it's overwhelmed by my amusement - please excuse any typos on my part, operating a computer keyboard isnt so when one just cant stop laughing....:D

No, Zagat, I haven't followed it.
I thought we established that a page back...who did you suggest didnt read posts before shooting off at the keyboard? Are you intentionally lampooning yourself for my amusement, can you just not stop yourself, do you like really silly, or are you honest to goodness oblivious of very silly this behaviour makes you look...?:confused: :D

That's what I just fucking said. Christ, do you understand anything other people write? The way you respond to people's posts it seems like you barely even bother.
Or is that I dont bother reading posts before I barge in and make a fool of myself...oh sorry hang on, that's not me, that's umm, well, I think we all know who that is, at least those of us that bother to read and understand what beens posted do....:D

I just noticed a disparity between what Good Lifes was responding to and what you were responding to. Read his post again, and you will notice that your italicized thesis does not even appear in the section he is responding to.
You read it again and if you have even the most rudimentary reading, comprehension and critical thinking skills you will easily realise that my response made was appropriate. It's not my fault you are so desperate to one up me (and cant even seem to make even the most sketchy attempt at appearing to hide it) that you burst in at what you percieved as an opportunity to have pick at me, only to make yourself look incredibly foolish...
...honestly between the bit about demanding if I read posts I respond and the obvious demonstration that you hadnt read the posts you had chosen to pick up - couldnt be more classic....as I said earlier, it's all your own work!

I understand that he was only responding to a portion of your argument, but you seemed to be endicting him for responding improperly to a portion of your argument that he didn't even bother with.
Another demonstration of either your failure to read or your failure to comprehend.

If that's the more important point you were attempting to make that's all well and good, but don't fault him for responding improperly to something when in fact he didn't respond to it at all.
Have you still not bothered to read the 3 posts concerned, or is this an example of the rudimentary level of your critical reasoning skills?

Usually, when people ignore gigantic chunks of my posts [which happens a lot], I take it as a concession. The ignored points are seldom worth bringing up again. In this context, you're attempting to discredit Good Life's [admittedly slippery slope] reasoning by attempting to deflect his statements as referring to something else. If I could draw a picture, believe me, I would.
No I'm not...by all means feel free to carry on in such a vein although being the kindly person I am I feel it is my duty to suggest you actually figure out what is going on and comprehend what you are commenting rather than carrying on to see just how silly you can make yourself look....:D

Thanks for the belly-laugh though. Just what I needed.;)

Legal drugs keep people healthy thus contributing to the society.
You misinterpret. The same drugs that are currently illegal have costs whether they remain illegal or are legalised.

There are those regulations. People still drive drunk because it has become a part of the culture. Why make more things a part of the culture that will contribute to injury and death?
Are you trying to posit that somewhere on earth in contemporary times there is a culture free from drug taking? Or do you somehow imagine that if the law abiding citizens who dont take drugs when the are illegal will suddenly break the law and drive under their influence if they were legalised? Either way I find your reasoning doubtful at best...

Exactly my point.
No that wasnt your point at all. Your point was that there should be laws stopping people from doing things that do not necessary present any unreasonable risk of injury or death to others.

There are increases in insurance costs that penalize all of us. So you are arguing that we should allow even more health risk just because we already have some?
I'm arguing that people shouldnt be locked up in prison for doing something that's none of your business just so you can save a few dollars. I'd argue as much even if the money saved in the costs of apprehending and processing marijuana smokers didnt probably cost more per person in taxes than would be added to insurance claims by ill pot-heads...

Let's hope they don't do it regularly.
Too much. They are stealing from all of us.
Everything has gains and losses. Exercise has more gains than losses. It's a net gain for society. We should find a way to give bonus' for it.
Money, health, death, ..........

Every cig blower steals from the company every cig break. You want to add another layer?
Did you grow up in a military school or are you just a control freak by nature?

Personally, I find a little sex helps people.
Except when people catch diseases doing it and end up adding to our insurance bills, not that I would suggest arresting people for having consensual sex.....but if you are consistent with your principal you either have to abandon it in regards to drugs or apply it in regards to sex...even protected sex, condoms do break.

Drugs are an accident? Well they can CAUSE an accident, but are they an accident in themselves?
I dont posit any supreme creator or designer as their originator so far as marijauna is concerned, although people certainly have tinkered around making improvements.

Again, some things have a net gain over minimal loss.
And legalising marijuana is one of those things.

Sure glad you answered your own arguements.
Someone had to help you out!

Now are you satisfied that I gave answers to silly statements.
I'm neither satisfied nor dissatisfied...

And imperiling our precious productivity...! Next to our bodily fluids, nothing matters more than sweet productivity...
I'd rather have more productivity than less. I enjoy my living standards, thank you very much.

Plus, using hemp for industrial purposes can replace materials that are more harmful to the environment.

Oh, sweetie, you just cant quit when you're already so darn far behind....funniest of all, it's all your own work! Ok, I do have a modicum but sympathy, but it's overwhelmed by my amusement - please excuse any typos on my part, operating a computer keyboard isnt so when one just cant stop laughing....:D
Right back atcha. There are few things on this planet I find more amusing than your posts.

I thought we established that a page back...who did you suggest didnt read posts before shooting off at the keyboard? Are you intentionally lampooning yourself for my amusement, can you just not stop yourself, do you like really silly, or are you honest to goodness oblivious of very silly this behaviour makes you look...?:confused: :D
You have no idea how well that little frowny purple smiley with the question marks over it suits you. There's a difference between saying "I'm not really following this very closely, but I noticed x" and actually "Arguing" with someone and completely missing the subject of your your opponent's answer.

Or is that I dont bother reading posts before I barge in and make a fool of myself...oh sorry hang on, that's not me, that's umm, well, I think we all know who that is, at least those of us that bother to read and understand what beens posted do....:D
You want my honest opinion? You know what your response is going to be before you're done with the first sentence. You fragment other users' posts as much as you possibly can so as to create the maximum possible level of confusion. You're right: we do all know who it is, and it sure as hell isn't me.

You read it again and if you have even the most rudimentary reading, comprehension and critical thinking skills you will easily realise that my response made was appropriate. It's not my fault you are so desperate to one up me (and cant even seem to make even the most sketchy attempt at appearing to hide it) that you burst in at what you percieved as an opportunity to have pick at me, only to make yourself look incredibly foolish...
...honestly between the bit about demanding if I read posts I respond and the obvious demonstration that you hadnt read the posts you had chosen to pick up - couldnt be more classic....as I said earlier, it's all your own work!
Nice try.

Good Lifes quoted a portion of your post, and responded to a point you were trying to make in a specific segment of your post. You come in and quote an entirely different segment of your post and try to pass it off as the same point. The funny part is that he was still wrong, and you couldn't even attack his reasoning legitimately. He quoted your ending paragraph, and you responded by indicating a completely different line that appeared about 1/3 of the way through that particular post.

Another demonstration of either your failure to read or your failure to comprehend.
Intellectual criticism from you sounds about as natural as an oral bowel movement. You really ought to quit while you're ahead.

Have you still not bothered to read the 3 posts concerned, or is this an example of the rudimentary level of your critical reasoning skills?
Since we started? Yeah, I went over some of it earlier today. The next part is important. If you only understand one thing from this post [and even that might be asking too much] I ask that it be this:

When I said "The italicized segment above doesn't even appear anywhere in the argument Good Lifes was answering to" I'm guessing that you think I was referring to the [i]entirety of post #169, which I hadn't read as of the time of that writing. Instead, I was referring to the [b]segment which Good Lifes was referring to in his reply. That is why I chose to indicate that I hadn't been following the debate very closely, as it was a "from the hip" type post rather than an exhaustively researched one.

No I'm not...by all means feel free to carry on in such a vein although being the kindly person I am I feel it is my duty to suggest you actually figure out what is going on and comprehend what you are commenting rather than carrying on to see just how silly you can make yourself look....:D

Thanks for the belly-laugh though. Just what I needed.;)
You know what? I couldn't possibly care less. The fact that you're "belly laughing" at this only supports my hypothesis that you've got little or no idea what you're doing or talking about: it certainly does nothing to discredit anything I've said so far. My analysis of the situation is 100% accurate and you can laugh about it all you want, if that's your defense mechanism of choice.

Damn, I'm really wishing I could draw that picture right about now.

LOL, classic.:D
My only confusion, should I be laughing with you or at you...?:confused:

Do you know how many different types of alcohol there are? How many mixes and ingredients? How many variants on the single drink? They have artisans who design that shit.

Now what about cigarettes? You have... tobacco... and... that's about it. Marijuana is even sadder.

Do you know how many different types of alcohol there are? How many mixes and ingredients? How many variants on the single drink? They have artisans who design that shit.

Now what about cigarettes? You have... tobacco... and... that's about it. Marijuana is even sadder.
You have long leaf, short leaf, cuban, egyptian, pipe tobacco, etc.

For weed there is indica, sativa, various hybrids and special breeds, creeper, heady, thai, red hair, purple hair, etc etc.

If you don't know, find out...

You misinterpret. The same drugs that are currently illegal have costs whether they remain illegal or are legalised.


Are you trying to posit that somewhere on earth in contemporary times there is a culture free from drug taking? Or do you somehow imagine that if the law abiding citizens who dont take drugs when the are illegal will suddenly break the law and drive under their influence if they were legalised? Either way I find your reasoning doubtful at best...


No that wasnt your point at all. Your point was that there should be laws stopping people from doing things that do not necessary present any unreasonable risk of injury or death to others.


I'm arguing that people shouldnt be locked up in prison for doing something that's none of your business just so you can save a few dollars. I'd argue as much even if the money saved in the costs of apprehending and processing marijuana smokers didnt probably cost more per person in taxes than would be added to insurance claims by ill pot-heads...


Did you grow up in a military school or are you just a control freak by nature?


Except when people catch diseases doing it and end up adding to our insurance bills, not that I would suggest arresting people for having consensual sex.....but if you are consistent with your principal you either have to abandon it in regards to drugs or apply it in regards to sex...even protected sex, condoms do break.


I dont posit any supreme creator or designer as their originator so far as marijauna is concerned, although people certainly have tinkered around making improvements.


And legalising marijuana is one of those things.


Someone had to help you out!


I'm neither satisfied nor dissatisfied...

Everything you said can go back to my original post. If we knew 500 years ago what we know now tobacco would not be legal. If we knew 50,000 years ago what we know now alcohol would not be legal. Our ancestors can plead ignorance of the effects of these drugs. Through their use in society they have become a part of the culture so it is very difficult to remove them. If we legalized marijuana we could not plead ignorance. We would be giving cultural acceptance to something we know is harmful to both the individual and those they may randomly come in contact with as well as to the society as a whole. There is very little up side (as with your example of exercise) and a great deal of downside,(health, life, and money--both for the individual and those the individual comes in contact with)

Now, I doubt that you will understand analogy, but for the other readers who will:

Society is similiar to a living organism. The people are the individual cells.
In your body, cancer cells are produced every day. The white blood cells (the police of the body) eliminate these cells before they become an accepted part of the organism. If they are allowed to become an accepted part of the organism, they begin to effect the entire organism. This would be the same as legalization and thereby accepted as the cultural norm. Our societal organism already has two drug cancers (tobacco and alcohol) that have become a part of the culture to the point where they infect the entire organism making it impractical to surgically remove. So we have chosen a therapy of education to limit the losses caused by these malignancys. For the most part this is effective. Most of the cancer cells do no harm. But we also know that in many cases these cancers weaken or kill the individual cell and other cells they come in contact to. Thereby weakening the organism as a whole. They show no value to the organism as a whole or to the individuals infected. Therefore the organism has a stake in keeping the drug cancers under control. Now you are proposing that we allow a third cancer to not only be a small part of the organism, randomly eliminated by the white cells, but to tell all of the cells that this sarcoma normal. Just as the other two cancers became spread throughout the organism by legalization, the third would also spread with legal acceptence. Just because we have two drug cancers weakening the organism of society, it is of no logic to say that we should add a carcinoma further weakening the organism. Indeed, we have as a society recognized the damage of tobacco and, while unable to surgically remove because of it's spread, the body is fighting the weakening effect of the drug.

Let's keep the societal organism as strong and healthy as possible. It will benefit all of us. The alternative will weaken all of us.

Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it should automatically be outlawed, Good Lifes. By your rationale, potato chips and fast food wouldn't be legal either, if we were aware of their rammifications when they were first created.

People who speak of making a "strong society" send shivers down my spine almost every time, because they invariably use the same brand of specious "reasoning" that you just deployed above. Furthermore, the lengths these people would go to to make a "strong society" are all too often nothing short of horrendous. Trying to regulate what I choose to do with my body, provided said activities are nonviolent, is one of these lengths.

Education and good decision-making lowers use, not prohibition. If anything, the fact that so many officials went to such lengths to villify the substance only made me [i]more curious about it in my childhood. Were this not the case, I would probably only smoke pot about as often as I, say, drink, which is to say not very often; although I have been hitting the sauce a bit more lately. Such as it is now, my marijuana habit is much more significant than my alcohol habit. In my case [and in many others] prohibition has had the exact opposite effect.

Oh, and in case you forgot, they did try making booze illegal earlier this century. As a result, thousands were killed in gang warfare and countless more were fucked up by improperly made bathtub tonics.

Do you know how many different types of alcohol there are? How many mixes and ingredients? How many variants on the single drink? They have artisans who design that shit.

Now what about cigarettes? You have... tobacco... and... that's about it. Marijuana is even sadder.
A wide variety of delivery methods and paraphenalia doesnt make alcohol inherently unique to other drugs.

Whether or not something is art is entirely subjective however so far as I'm concerned if you dont think a well done frosted shoddy is a work of art, you're simply not doing it right.

Everything you said can go back to my original post. If we knew 500 years ago what we know now tobacco would not be legal. If we knew 50,000 years ago what we know now alcohol would not be legal. Our ancestors can plead ignorance of the effects of these drugs. Through their use in society they have become a part of the culture so it is very difficult to remove them. If we legalized marijuana we could not plead ignorance. We would be giving cultural acceptance to something we know is harmful to both the individual and those they may randomly come in contact with as well as to the society as a whole. There is very little up side (as with your example of exercise) and a great deal of downside,(health, life, and money--both for the individual and those the individual comes in contact with)
The fact that something isnt illegal does not mean it has 'cultural acceptance'. That kind of mind-set is in fact an example of exactly the problem with laws that supposedly protect the individual from themselves. You create the expectation that laws will protect people from their own stupidity. Eventually you get people starting to think that if it's not illegal it must be ok to do it - surely if it was a stupid thing to do there would be a law against it! You've now gone a step further and claimed that if something isnt illegal, then it has cultural acceptance...that's just silly.
The purpose of the law is not to think for you or to let you know what is culturally accepted. You're supposed to figure these things out for yourself. By the time you are an adult and out from under your parents' authority you are supposed to know how to do your own thinking, and if you care about cultural acceptance, you're supposed to have figured out for yourself what is and is not culturally accepted. If you actually think that just because something has (or appears to have) social acceptance you ought to do (rather than you could choose to do it without the risk of being socially rebuked for doing so), then I redirect your attention back to the first thing you are supposed to know how to do when you are an adult - ie do your own thinking.

Now, I doubt that you will understand analogy, but for the other readers who will:
Your doubts are ill-founded, and your analogy long outdated.
Society is similiar to a living organism. The people are the individual cells. In your body, cancer cells are produced every day. The white blood cells (the police of the body) eliminate these cells before they become an accepted part of the organism. If they are allowed to become an accepted part of the organism, they begin to effect the entire organism. This would be the same as legalization and thereby accepted as the cultural norm. Our societal organism already has two drug cancers (tobacco and alcohol) that have become a part of the culture to the point where they infect the entire organism making it impractical to surgically remove. So we have chosen a therapy of education to limit the losses caused by these malignancys. For the most part this is effective. Most of the cancer cells do no harm. But we also know that in many cases these cancers weaken or kill the individual cell and other cells they come in contact to. Thereby weakening the organism as a whole. They show no value to the organism as a whole or to the individuals infected. Therefore the organism has a stake in keeping the drug cancers under control. Now you are proposing that we allow a third cancer to not only be a small part of the organism, randomly eliminated by the white cells, but to tell all of the cells that this sarcoma normal. Just as the other two cancers became spread throughout the organism by legalization, the third would also spread with legal acceptence. Just because we have two drug cancers weakening the organism of society, it is of no logic to say that we should add a carcinoma further weakening the organism. Indeed, we have as a society recognized the damage of tobacco and, while unable to surgically remove because of it's spread, the body is fighting the weakening effect of the drug.

Let's keep the societal organism as strong and healthy as possible. It will benefit all of us. The alternative will weaken all of us.
Society is sufficiently different to an organic organism that using the Spencer's very well known and long since critiqued organism analogy isnt very useful. Crucially the individual parts of an organism have no individual will. Their functioning is entirely mechanical. People are not. People are not component parts of an orchestrated whole. Unlike cells people think and reason (some better than others). Cancer cells spread because of the mechanical functioning that governs their behaviour. If cancer cells didnt spread, wheres does that leave your analogy? So precisely the process necessary for your analogy to make sense (the mechanistic functioning of cells) isnt applicable to human society.
This basic distinguishment between the functioning of organisms and the functioning of human societies is why Spencer's organic analogy long since ceased to be relied on in the social sciences (although it is occassionally still discussed and used as a device for teaching critical reasoning in the analysis of theoretical frameworks). The fact is the very factors that cause organisms to function as they do are missing in the case of human societies and yet exactly these factors are in nearly every case (and certainly in the case of your analogy) necessary for the analogies outcome.

Right back atcha. There are few things on this planet I find more amusing than your posts.
Of course and that explains why you periodically take the trouble to post complaining about the tedium of reading them....if of course one believes tedium and amusement are the same thing...

You have no idea how well that little frowny purple smiley with the question marks over it suits you.
You only think you know that...

There's a difference between saying "I'm not really following this very closely, but I noticed x" and actually "Arguing" with someone and completely missing the subject of your your opponent's answer.
There's a difference between noticing something and erroneously forming an impression. Even without reading the post Good Lifes extracted the quote from, it should have been possible to work out that my response was appropriate.
The subject of the answer was not only something that was not stated in the segment quoted by Good Lifes, nor only something not stated anywhere in the post that it was extracted from, nor only something I have not stated on any post at any time, but it was also something that had already been excluded within the context of the discourse segment that was actually posted. The segment never existed floating free of its context, it was from the outset nestled within a larger text and part of the meaning of it is communicated in that surrounding text.

You want my honest opinion? You know what your response is going to be before you're done with the first sentence. You fragment other users' posts as much as you possibly can so as to create the maximum possible level of confusion. You're right: we do all know who it is, and it sure as hell isn't me.
Your honest opinion is wrong.

Nice try.
Thanks.

Good Lifes quoted a portion of your post, and responded to a point you were trying to make in a specific segment of your post.
No Good Lifes was not replying to a point I was trying to make, and you've no excuse for not knowing that if you have read the segment Good Lifes quoted....Good Lifes was arguing against a non-point that I have never posted here or on any internet forum, ever in the entire history of the internet...
You come in and quote an entirely different segment of your post and try to pass it off as the same point.
No I didnt, and you've no excuse for believing that I did if you have read my reply to Good Lifes...why would I try to pass off a point I did make as being a point I have never made, nor ever would make, nor would really want anyone to think I had made? Do please try to catch up...

The funny part is that he was still wrong, and you couldn't even attack his reasoning legitimately.
You really do have no idea what's going on do you?
It's all very simple, Good Lifes argued a strawman fallacy. I countered as much, and then went further by demonstrating not only that I hadnt argued the straw argument Good Lifes was knocking about, but that the in the same post he extracted the segment from, (ie in the context that is necessary to take into account when interpreting any segment of the entire text) I had excluded the possibilty of such an interpretation. So not only was Good Lifes strawman provably a strawman by the absence of my having made the straw argument he was giving the bash to, but further it was provably so by the presence of a statement that is contrary to interpreting any part of the whole from which the segment was extracted, as meaning what Good Lifes was arguing against.
Just in case you still dont get it....
Me:reply to GL
GL:quote me and argues against a strawman
Me:The text you quoted doesnt say that, in fact that text that you extracted it from is contrary to such an interpretation
You: but GL didnt quote the text that is contary to such an interpretation
Me: yes I know that, but none the less it is the context of the quote and so excludes the interpretation GL has made from being a reasonable or appropriate one
You: now swearing and probably bouncing up and down in you seat - but that text you replied with wasnt in the segment GL posted...it wasnt in the segment,....it wasnt in the segment - bet you didnt know that!
Me: I did know that, I have no idea what's taking you so long to get it all figured out....I can only guess you just really dont want to understand the facts as they happen to be...

He quoted your ending paragraph, and you responded by indicating a completely different line that appeared about 1/3 of the way through that particular post.
Yes, the context of the segment that excluded the interpretation that GL was making...I'm really not sure how to explain it all in any more simple terms. Can you be clear about what aspect of this all is so confusing to you? It's not rocket science. If you still dont get it please return to simplified summary above. Maybe try reading slower, have an adult explain it to you or something.

Intellectual criticism from you sounds about as natural as an oral bowel movement. You really ought to quit while you're ahead.
Hahaha, heeheheheheehehe
Good one! Do you always hear text when you read it.....?

....I only hear mine when I type it.

Since we started? Yeah, I went over some of it earlier today. The next part is important. If you only understand one thing from this post [and even that might be asking too much] I ask that it be this:
And yet still astonishly fail to comprehend any of it, or at least pretend to, although I've no idea why you want people to actually believe you cannot keep up with the very simple chain of events that we are discussion...each to their own I guess.

When I said "The italicized segment above doesn't even appear anywhere in the argument Good Lifes was answering to" I'm guessing that you think I was referring to the [i]entirety of post
So it appears! You're classic. I wouldnt have believed it if I were not reading it. Tell me exactly what leads you to such a conclusion?
Was it my this part of my reply to you
"did you bother to read [B]the post it was extracted from
may I ask what you though 'post it was extracted from' could possibly mean if you exclude the possibility that I am talking about a segment of a post? If didnt interpet the referent of 'it' to be a segment of a post, what exactly did you interpret the referent to be? Please tell, because now I'm curious.
And before you become confused yes I know you said you were not following the 'argument', my whole point is that was a bit silly on your part if you wanted to avoid blundering. Not getting your facts right before you shot off at the keyboard and had a go at someone (presumably in order to incite them....:rolleyes: ) is your problem, not an excuse (as you seem to imagine).

So do I and did I realise all along that you hadnt even bothered to get your facts straight before you starting up flame-baiting? Yes, of course I realise this, because unlike you, I do have my facts straight. A further difference is that unlike you I see not getting your facts straight as being where you went wrong rather than an excuse that magically makes you not wrong...

#169, which I hadn't read as of the time of that writing.
No kidding!

Instead, I was referring to the segment which Good Lifes was referring to in his reply.
I know this. However I also know that it's your own fault you didnt check out your facts before you posted your flame-bait. You shouldnt be flame baiting at all, but if you none-the-less choose to, surely any stupidity you commit due to not having your facts straight is entirely your own fault.
The fact is it wasnt absolutely necessary to read the earlier post in order to work out that my response was entirely appropriate (a reading of the original the quoted segment was extracted from would have made this more obvious for the slightly slower).
More to the point it wasnt necessary to have posted anything at all. You were not involved in the particular branch of discourse until you chose to involve yourself, not to add anything whatsoever to the discussion but simply to have a go at one of the posters, not one of the facts presented by that poster mind you, but the poster themselves. So far as I can ascertain, the motivation for your post was your personal feelings towards me, and the reason for posting was to upset or inflame me. Now we both know that you shouldnt be doing that even if you do have your facts straight. That you got burned flame-baiting due to not having your facts straight is your own fault and entirely your own work.
It is however amusing. As is your "wah, wah, wah, it's not my fault I had no idea what I was talking about and no idea what was going on when I tried to launch an unprovoked attack on another poster, wah, wah, wah" reply...

That is why I chose to indicate that I hadn't been following the debate very closely, as it was a "from the hip" type post rather than an exhaustively researched one.
Right. I dont know why you think indicating that even you ought to realise that you are not qualified to comment on something would actually make you look less silly when you go ahead and comment anyway.
Can you explain to me why claiming that you dont know enough to realise you shouldnt comment about something when you dont know what you are talking about, would make not knowing what you are talking about seem any less silly, rather than more?

You know what? I couldn't possibly care less. The fact that you're "belly laughing" at this only supports my hypothesis that you've got little or no idea what you're doing or talking about: it certainly does nothing to discredit anything I've said so far.
Perhaps in your head.

My analysis of the situation is 100% accurate and you can laugh about it all you want, if that's your defense mechanism of choice.
I doubt that, if it is, I can only wonder why you would post comments that are contrary to your own analysis.

Damn, I'm really wishing I could draw that picture right about now.
Cool! Do you take requests? I'd so love an 'artists' rendition' of the 'hunter/gatherer society pregnant woman conveyance contraption'...I reckon I flog a few copies of those off around the anthro dept. I'd have a go myself, but one I'm crap at drawing, and two I keep trying to imagine what such a contraption would look like, and all I can come up with is a couple of feet - pregnant hunter/gatherer-women feet to be precise.:D

Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it should automatically be outlawed, Good Lifes. By your rationale, potato chips and fast food wouldn't be legal either, if we were aware of their rammifications when they were first created.

You know what the difference between all that and smoking is, though? One puff does damage to your lungs.

Oh, and in case you forgot, they did try making booze illegal earlier this century. As a result, thousands were killed in gang warfare and countless more were fucked up by improperly made bathtub tonics.

Hey, that's not at all like what's happening with drugs. How dare you compare them?! What shade of pink are you?

You know what the difference between all that and smoking is, though? One puff does damage to your lungs.

Well, punching yourself in the face is harmful too. Shall we make that illegal?

The fact that something isnt illegal does not mean it has 'cultural acceptance'. That kind of mind-set is in fact an example of exactly the problem with laws that supposedly protect the individual from themselves. You create the expectation that laws will protect people from their own stupidity. Eventually you get people starting to think that if it's not illegal it must be ok to do it - surely if it was a stupid thing to do there would be a law against it! You've now gone a step further and claimed that if something isnt illegal, then it has cultural acceptance...that's just silly.
You have an example of something that is legal that doesn't have cultural acceptance?

The purpose of the law is not to think for you or to let you know what is culturally accepted. You're supposed to figure these things out for yourself. By the time you are an adult and out from under your parents' authority you are supposed to know how to do your own thinking, and if you care about cultural acceptance, you're supposed to have figured out for yourself what is and is not culturally accepted. If you actually think that just because something has (or appears to have) social acceptance you ought to do (rather than you could choose to do it without the risk of being socially rebuked for doing so), then I redirect your attention back to the first thing you are supposed to know how to do when you are an adult - ie do your own thinking.
You can decide to do or not do things that are culturally accepted. (drinking, smoking....) Where is your evidence that legalization isn't an indicator of cultural acceptance. I could argue that legalization of gambling has made it culturally acceptable. Yes there was some illegal gambling before legalization (as there is some pot smoking) but not nearly to the extent of today. In Kansas City the "boats" take in $10 for every man, woman, and child every month. By making gambling legal, it was made culturally acceptable and increased many fold.

Your doubts are ill-founded, and your analogy long outdated.

Society is sufficiently different to an organic organism that using the Spencer's very well known and long since critiqued organism analogy isnt very useful. Crucially the individual parts of an organism have no individual will. Their functioning is entirely mechanical. People are not. People are not component parts of an orchestrated whole. Unlike cells people think and reason (some better than others). Cancer cells spread because of the mechanical functioning that governs their behaviour. If cancer cells didnt spread, wheres does that leave your analogy? So precisely the process necessary for your analogy to make sense (the mechanistic functioning of cells) isnt applicable to human society.
This basic distinguishment between the functioning of organisms and the functioning of human societies is why Spencer's organic analogy long since ceased to be relied on in the social sciences (although it is occassionally still discussed and used as a device for teaching critical reasoning in the analysis of theoretical frameworks). The fact is the very factors that cause organisms to function as they do are missing in the case of human societies and yet exactly these factors are in nearly every case (and certainly in the case of your analogy) necessary for the analogies outcome.
WOW!!!! I never heard of Mr. Spencer. I guess great minds think alike.

An analogy is never perfect. It can always be picked apart on detail. The point remains that illegal drugs hinder the society as a whole. They kill, and maim those that randomly come in contact with users. They also harm the economy for everyone through loss of productivity, and loss of health and life of workers. (both users and those they destroy) You have never mentioned any good that pot use would do for society. In order for it to become rational to legalize, it must contribute more than it destroys. I haven't seen you show one way that it would balance any of it's costs. Health, Life, Monetary Your only arguement is a childish, selfish "I want to do what I want to do." "And I don't give a damn about anyone else" Give me some benefits. Who would it make healthier? (remember we can extract medicines thereby bypassing the harms) (and the thread is recreational not medicinal) Who's life would it save? How would it contribute monitarily to society?

Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it should automatically be outlawed, Good Lifes. By your rationale, potato chips and fast food wouldn't be legal either, if we were aware of their rammifications when they were first created. Don't know of many killed by a potato chip induced driver. Or second hand potato chips.

Trying to regulate what I choose to do with my body, provided said activities are nonviolent, is one of these lengths. A car accident caused by a high driver is violent.

Education and good decision-making lowers use, not prohibition. If anything, the fact that so many officials went to such lengths to villify the substance only made me more curious about it in my childhood. Were this not the case, I would probably only smoke pot about as often as I, say, drink, which is to say not very often; although I have been hitting the sauce a bit more lately. Such as it is now, my marijuana habit is much more significant than my alcohol habit. In my case [and in many others] prohibition has had the exact opposite effect. I made the same education arguement about durgs that have become culturally acceptable (tobacco, alcohol) People are more apt to do legal things than illegal.

Oh, and in case you forgot, they did try making booze illegal earlier this century. As a result, thousands were killed in gang warfare and countless more were fucked up by improperly made bathtub tonics.
Again, alcohol became culturally acceptable. That's why we have to use the education option rather than radical surgury. If we would have known 50,000 years ago what we know now it would not be legal. Our ancestors can plead ignorance. When it comes to pot, we cannot plead ignorance. Just because we have dangerous drugs already in society, how does that justify adding more dangerous drugs to the mix?

It will probably never happen, but what do you think and why?

i dont smoke...use too..but it makes me all paronoid(go figure)

i say YES YES AND YES.

LETS CRIMMINALISE SOMETHING THAT GROWS NATURALLY...

worse thing i ever did when i was high was blow my loot on food.

You have an example of something that is legal that doesn't have cultural acceptance?

Self-mutilation, poo-fetish sex, making racist statements in public, bathing in your own urine...

Plenty of things aren't socially accepted but are still legal.

Judging by the poll, smoking pot is culturally acceptable. ;)

I say legalise it everywhere... It'd get people growing hemp for the oil and the fibre. Hemp could help out the "third-world" countries so much.

Self-mutilation, poo-fetish sex, making racist statements in public, bathing in your own urine...

Plenty of things aren't socially accepted but are still legal.

Judging by the poll, smoking pot is culturally acceptable. ;)
I think self-mutilation is illegal (maybe not not now that tattoos and piercings are so popular) (of course, they are becoming culturally acceptable). Racist statements are frowned upon by polite society but are a part of the culture. Sort of in the catagory of smoking cigs. Once we have them in the culture they are hard to eliminate. I'm too old to know what poo-fetish sex is. Bathing in urine happens so rarely that society hasn't taken a stand on it pro or con.

As far as the vote on this poll, if you really think you have 75% of the votes in the real world, Why don't you petition to put it to a vote?

I say legalise it everywhere... It'd get people growing hemp for the oil and the fibre. Hemp could help out the "third-world" countries so much.
In most countries it is legal to grow the non-drug breeds. I'm sure that most of the third-world have few restrictions on it's growth as an industry.

This type of use really doesn't relate to the subject of "recreational use" because the plant itself has been bred to contain no drug. Unless we're talking of macrame as a recreational use.

You have an example of something that is legal that doesn't have cultural acceptance?
Lying, cheating on one's wife, cheating at sports, BDSM, not taking a shower and getting all stinky....the list is darn near endless...just because it's not illegal doesnt mean you ought to do it. I repeat (from my earlier post) the law doesnt exist to think for you.

You can decide to do or not do things that are culturally accepted. (drinking, smoking....) Where is your evidence that legalization isn't an indicator of cultural acceptance. I could argue that legalization of gambling has made it culturally acceptable. Yes there was some illegal gambling before legalization (as there is some pot smoking) but not nearly to the extent of today. In Kansas City the "boats" take in $10 for every man, woman, and child every month. By making gambling legal, it was made culturally acceptable and increased many fold.
And so what? If people want to make a mess of their own lives, that's their perogative.

WOW!!!! I never heard of Mr. Spencer. I guess great minds think alike.
I wouldnt describe Spencer's mind as great, but then I've never been a great fan of social-Darwinists. I rather you expected you hadnt heard of Spencer - it's not likely you would have heard of him without also been exposed to the critique of his organism-society analogy.

An analogy is never perfect. It can always be picked apart on detail. The point remains that illegal drugs hinder the society as a whole.
Well I agree that illegal drugs hinder society as a whole, I just happen to think that the harm stemming from their illegality is greater than the harm that the same drugs would cause were they not illegal.
As for your analogy, it isnt that it isnt perfect, it is that it fails completely. The very thing that causes the outcome in the organsim is missing in the case of society. That being the case there is no basis whatsoever for supposing that the outcomes of the two things will be the same. The two are distinguishable on materially relevent grounds. That means your analogy fails. If you dont understand this then ought to be a bit more careful before you throw around accusations supposing other people cannot understand analogies. It's usually best to not throw stones when you happen to reside in a glass house.

They kill, and maim those that randomly come in contact with users.
No drugs do not that, I know of no example of a person being attacked by drugs after randomly coming into contact with a drug user. In fact the very suggestion that drugs might attack someone makes me wonder if the person positing such a suggestion is already on drugs, or ought to visit their GP to arrange to be.

They also harm the economy for everyone through loss of productivity, and loss of health and life of workers. (both users and those they destroy)
Do have any idea what the overt cost of the 'war on drugs' is in the US alone? How about the cost of lost productivity and ill health that arises through the fact that illegal drugs are not regulated there is no quality control and people can sold 'very bad gear' either through error or through outright scammery? How about the fact that there is an inability to educate people about drug use due to all the propaganda. There is so much false information that it's difficult to get people to believe information that isnt false. Remove the propaganda and people have less reason to be suspicious of information about the harms of drugs. The list of the cost of having these drugs illegal and their users addressed through the criminal system (rather than looking at the issue as a health problem) could go on and on and on. The fact is if you claim that legalising drugs will lead to more costs and a greater loss of productivity then you need to address and account for the huge cost of their illegality, and that you do not appear to have done.

You have never mentioned any good that pot use would do for society.
It doesnt have to do any good.

In order for it to become rational to legalize, it must contribute more than it destroys.
No I dont, although your suggesting as much does posit another example of the harm the illegality of drugs causes to society. You seem to be reasoning from the assumption that the default is for everything to be illegal until it is proven that having it legal provides more benefit than cost, as which point we will be permitted to do that thing. Does this sound like a free society to you? It sure doesnt sound like one to me. You've got it entirely backwards. Things are not all illegal until they are made illegal. The fact that something is illegal needs to be justified or the situation remedied so it is not illegal. Never ever ought it be the other way around in any society that has any claim whatsoever to the title 'free'.

I haven't seen you show one way that it would balance any of it's costs.
I dont see any reason whatsoever why I ought to. I believe we ought to live in free societies not dictatorships of productivity.

Health, Life, Monetary Your only arguement is a childish, selfish "I want to do what I want to do.
Health wise I actually have read very comprehensive arguments by top experts in the field and as a result I do believe that in all probability health costs of drugs would be minismised and so best managed by treating drug use as a health problem. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that our societies usually treat health concerns as health concerns. Either we ought to treat having a cold, mental illness of sports injuries via the justice system rather than through a health system, or drugs are in fact better treated as a health issue than they are a justice system issue, or drug health costs are somehow magically different to all other health concerns...
As for life, people ought to be free to pick out their own life-parts so long as they do not directly interefer with other people's right to autonomously do the same. So in fact the illegality of drugs since it doesnt protect the right of anyone to pick out their own life free from interference in their autonomy by others, but does actively prevent people from doing as much, is all cost and no benefit.
With regards to money, until you can account for the huge financial costs of the illegality of certain drugs, you dont have a leg to stand on.

" "And I don't give a damn about anyone else" Give me some benefits. Who would it make healthier? (remember we can extract medicines thereby bypassing the harms) (and the thread is recreational not medicinal) Who's life would it save? How would it contribute monitarily to society?
One only needs to indulge in such argumentation if one believes that a free society is not something we have or ought to have. So are you personally against free societies, because if so we have a fundamental difference in our vision of what society ought to be.

I think self-mutilation is illegal (maybe not not now that tattoos and piercings are so popular) (of course, they are becoming culturally acceptable). Racist statements are frowned upon by polite society but are a part of the culture. Sort of in the catagory of smoking cigs. Once we have them in the culture they are hard to eliminate. I'm too old to know what poo-fetish sex is. Bathing in urine happens so rarely that society hasn't taken a stand on it pro or con.

As far as the vote on this poll, if you really think you have 75% of the votes in the real world, Why don't you petition to put it to a vote?

I'd like to see it put to a vote. I'm pretty sure it would pass here, if it weren't for the current government.

It really should be up for referendum, at least.