NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think cannabis should be legal?

This means allowing the cultivation, supply and trade of cannabis and it's products (weed, hash, skunk) for the purposes of pleasure and medicinal benefits.

I just want to see a 'Yes' or 'No' answer in the polls, but feel free to post on how you would like to see cannabis legalised, for example:

'Coffeeshops', bought over the counter like tobacco or through government run agenices.

I've yet to see any reasonable explanation why it's illegal in the first place.

I've yet to see any reasonable explanation why it's illegal in the first place.

Social bigotry and taboos, corporate interests (especially from the cotton and certain sections of the tobacco industry etc...) and some politicians who like to regulate our lives.

Those are three good reasons.

BTW, I voted Yes.

I've yet to see any reasonable explanation why it's illegal in the first place.

I blame a propaganda piece called "Reefer Madness".

Legalize it, make the age 21, sell it in licensed smokeshops, and don't allow it to be used in public areas.

I remember back in history class the whole beginnings of the marijuana ban. In order to be allowed to smoke and/or grow cannabis, you had to obtain special stamps from the government. But in order to obtain these stamps, you had to have the marijuana in hand. They jailed the one guy that tried.

I also seem to remember anti-Mexican sentiment being a major factor behind illegalization, but I'm running on four hours of sleep, so I could very well be wrong.

As a more or less regular indulger, I'm all for legalization, but I'm also for responsibility. You shouldn't be able to smoke it right out in the streets, but in the privacy of your own home or certain establishments it shouldn't even be an issue.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/infiniterevolution/wallpaper0008bu.jpg

Murder! Insanity! Death!

:eek: they even put it in teh tea!!

I think all drugs should be legal for adults. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. They can take the risk of screwing up their lives if they want to.

I believe that overall marijuana does more good for you than harm. I voted yes to legalize it however I would implement some restrictions and limitations of use. No in public areas. Must be 21 years of age.

I wanted this poll to be about cannabis, but I am for legalising all drugs, but thats for another thread I guess.

As for the age limit, I am wary of even having one, given my own political beliefs and the fact that some people mature more than others (lets face it, we have all meet or know/known people who are more grown up mentally by the time they are 16 than some people who are 21).

I am also opposed to the idea of being allowed to smoke only in private, the streets/outside/parks etc... should be the areas that are least problematic given that you on't need to worry about passive smoking there as being in the open air as opposed to an enclosed space makes the passive smoking point redundant.

The above point can also apply to tobacco smoking.

As with cafes and bars etc... I live in London and you cannot move for bars in this city. Make half the bars and cafes smoker friendly (both tobacco and cannabis) and the other half non-smoking, thus both sides are sastisfied IMHO.

IF there would be a reliable way of ensuring proper distribution, it should be legalized in a way similar to cigarettes and alcohol.

sadly here in Nevada our initiative to legalize cannabis for recreational use did not pass. it was like 52 to 48 percent against.

but the anti smoking in food places thingy passed which is nice for non-smokers like me.

sadly here in Nevada our initiative to legalize cannabis for recreational use did not pass. it was like 52 to 48 percent against.

Was it split by party lines or not?

I mean, were the pro-cannabis group a mix of Dems and Repubs?

but the anti smoking in food places thingy passed which is nice for non-smokers like me.

But a blanket ban is not nice for smokers or non-smokers who have friends that are smokers and who themselves don't care about being in a smokers environment.

My idea is fairer, a 50/50 split of bars/cafes etc... for non smokers and smokers alike.

I've yet to see any reasonable explanation why it's illegal in the first place.

The guy who invented nylon commissioned the film "Reefer Madness" to get hemp made illegal, thus removing it as a competing, less expensive, alternative to his invention. Sometimes, capitalism blows :(

Legalize it, make the age 21, sell it in licensed smokeshops, and don't allow it to be used in public areas.
21? thats ridiculous. i dare ask what country you are from.

21? thats ridiculous. i dare ask what country you are from.

USA. And I put 21 if only for the arbitrary reasons that one can purchase alcohol at that age. *shrugs*

USA.
That explains everything.

I voted yes, of course.
And to answer the often asked question of why cannabis is illegal in the first place I, once again, recommend that you check out Jack Herer's website. (http://www.jackherer.com/)
I read his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes (http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html), many years ago and it changed my entire view on not only cannabis but on capitalism, government corruption and life in general.
The book is an eye opener!

That explains everything.

I'd be more inclined with a lower buying age, as well.

18 to buy it , and say, 16 to smoke. For drinking, the same. 18 to buy, and 16 to drink, however if with parental/family supervision, or something of the sorts. Not sure, as age limits are a bit of a sticky issue to get right.

I'd still want to restrict the sale to children (18 is a good age - why the US set their age for substances at 21 is a mystery to me), but I see no reason to interfere with the choices of adults.

The biggest issue I can think of with weed is that it seems to interfere with education, and that people I knew in high school who started smoking pot soon were just too relaxed and apathetic to do well in most classes.
Other than that, I haven't heard any good evidence that pot does anything that cigarettes and alchohol don't.

Pot, if legal, would practically distribute itself, as it's easy to grow and tend, and anyone who uses it would keep their own plants. The price of pot would fall to a couple of bucks an ounce.

I voted no mostly because if we ever do end up finding some problems with it were stuck with it (like tobacco I suppose) with that said used to (well quit yesterday) smoke the stuff pretty much everywhere no one seems to complain

And whoever named AK should be shot at dawn IMHO Soviet coolness must be stopped!!!

I'd still want to restrict the sale to children (18 is a good age - why the US set their age for substances at 21 is a mystery to me), but I see no reason to interfere with the choices of adults.

This link should help you with the mystery........

http://www.asfar.org/zine/5th/cover.html

I already said that I voted yes. I do have a concern, though. My fear is if it were to be legalized that the government/private entity would put additives and other chemicals in it. So if it were up to me I would pass it into law to be legal as long as it is in natural forms. No additives, no chemicals. It must be kept natural.

I already said that I voted yes. I do have a concern, though. My fear is if it were to be legalized that the government would put additives and other chemicals in it. So if it were up to me I would pass it into law to be legal as long as it is in natural forms. No additives, no chemicals. It must be kept natural.

What motivation would the government have to do that? I doubt the government would be any more likely than some sketchy drug dealers (not all of them, but let's face it...) to tamper with weed. Perhaps you were thinking of the tobacco companies...

I voted yes, of course.
And to answer the often asked question of why cannabis is illegal in the first place I, once again, recommend that you check out Jack Herer's website. (http://www.jackherer.com/)
I read his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes (http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html), many years ago and it changed my entire view on not only cannabis but on capitalism, government corruption and life in general.
The book is an eye opener!

Killing is absolutely right!

If you haven't read 'TEWNC' do so at the first opportunity!

Nuff said!

All the best
Me&MeDog

PS: 21 seems a reasonable age to me.....I'm an Englishman and I regularly have to put up with s**t from drunken 18-20yr olds who clearly lack maturity! Now while I don't often get s**t from stoners in the same age range, I bet somebody does.....Most probably their parents!

What motivation would the government have to do that? I doubt the government would be any more likely than some sketchy drug dealers (not all of them, but let's face it...) to tamper with weed. Perhaps you were thinking of the tobacco companies...

Okay, I edited my last post to say 'government/private entity' is that any better. Besides, the point is that it is my fear that somebody, company, or governmental body will add additives and/or chemicals to pot.

Was it split by party lines or not?

I mean, were the pro-cannabis group a mix of Dems and Repubs?



I do not know.

But a blanket ban is not nice for smokers or non-smokers who have friends that are smokers and who themselves don't care about being in a smokers environment.

My idea is fairer, a 50/50 split of bars/cafes etc... for non smokers and smokers alike.


it wasnt a blanket ban. it's a ban on smoking in food handling establishments. ANy bars or or gaming areas are okay for smoking in.

When I was a smoker I didnt mind the ban on smoking in Restaurants or bars in Utah or Calif. I actually enjoyed the cleaner air in those places as a smoker. Although when I quit, I enjoyed that cleaner air much much more. I dont feel sorry for smokers who cant smoke wherever they want. I was one and it wasnt so horrible.

Okay, I edited my last post to say 'government/private entity' is that any better. Besides, the point is that it is my fear that somebody, company, or governmental body will add additives and/or chemicals to pot.

as opposed to a shifty drug dealer and his mixture of chemicals?

I would say that pot will remain fairly clean because its all the rage to grow your own

I blame a propaganda piece called "Reefer Madness".

Oh that movie had nothing to do with it at all. Even for its time, it was a terrible movie. The acting, producing and film quality was so terrible that even then it was mostly known as a comedy piece. It was however the makers of that movie that scared middle class white americans into outlawing it. In fact, most people had no idea what marijuana was. It had been known in america as Indian Hemp for 2 centuries. The term marijuana was invented by Anslinger trying to convince everyone that it was a new Mexican devil weed that made dirty spicks kill people. That was the whole grounds on illegalizing it. Racism. And of course he was friends with and funded by board members of DuPont.

The biggest issue I can think of with weed is that it seems to interfere with education, and that people I knew in high school who started smoking pot soon were just too relaxed and apathetic to do well in most classes.

I had a different experience, albeit in college, not high school. After spending most of two years high, I found that the subjects I studied during that time would return, full-blown and unbidden, were I to get high again, even many, many years later. So, at least in my case, the effect was one of association, rather than impeded learning.

This link should help you with the mystery........

http://www.asfar.org/zine/5th/cover.html
So here's a question.

Is 21 (in the US) the minimum age to drink or the minimum age to buy liquor?

I know that in Canada you're permitted to serve liquor to minors in your own home in most provinces, and even in restaurants in some provinces as long as an adult consents.

Was it split by party lines or not?

I mean, were the pro-cannabis group a mix of Dems and Repubs?


It was split more along the lines of young and old and urban and rural. Northern Nevada came out in huge numbers, in some districts approaching 70 or 80% turnout. Clark County (that's the one including Las Vegas), by contrast, trended Democratic and favorable to the marijuana initiative, but had only around a 55% turnout. That was very good news for the Republican candidate for governor, but it was probably bad news for the marijuana initiative, because while there are a few libertarian republicans out there in Northern Nevada, they tend heavily towards the more cultural conservatism . . . Nevada is about 60% LDS, you know, and their libertarianism tends to draw the line at caffiene, much less THC.

Yes, prohibtion is a waste of time & money. It clearly hasn't worked.

Yes, prohibtion is a waste of time & money. It clearly hasn't worked.

It depends on what the prohibition is actually intended to achieve.

With regards to the prohibition of alcohol in the US it worked just fine.....Ask the Kennedys!

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/infiniterevolution/wallpaper0008bu.jpg

Murder! Insanity! Death!

:eek: they even put it in teh tea!!

Oh dear god! Not the tea!!!!

I dont think the question 'should X be legal' is a good question to ask in supposedly free countries (different thing entirely in a police state I would expect). In a free country it only makes sense to ask "should X be illegal" and where X = cannabis, the answer is "no, it shouldnt be illegal".

It should be controlled not illegal. Minors shouldnt have access to it, the quality ought to be controlled and the potency ought to be clearly indicated on product labelling. Further the revenue generated should be 'taxed and tracked'.

The fact that the "War on Drugs" has led to increasing availability, increasing types of drugs being offered, the aggressive sale to minors, the profitability of street gangs, drug dealers on street corners and entire neighbourhoods rendered 'drug-spot danger zones' along with alienation of various sectors of the community from law enforcement agencies, the potential financing of terrorists and other criminal enterprise, and frankly too many ills to list makes an end on this senseless, financially and socially costly, and spectacularly unsuccessful prohibition all the more desirable and urgent.