NationStates Jolt Archive

Omg, my first thread on these forums- I'm so nervous and excited.

Anyways, Marijuana- evil? Or harmless?
There's this weird thing in America where marijuana is thought to badly of, whereas it's much more accepted in other countries... I am aware this is an opinion formed from limited knowledge, but for instance Marijuana use has been pretty much accepted, (to varying degrees of implicit/outright) in the last 3 places I've worked- not while at work, I hasten to add-.....
And is so harshly treated by the law, and police efforts. Although Britain, needless to say, will try and copy America's stance, soon.

Basically, I disagree with many of the issues that are claimed, for Marijuana use- However, even if all but the most ridiculous were assumed true, I have never found an argument against it that is not invalidated were it legal.
For instance, all the mental health issues that are now becoming 'scientifically' proven- as far as I can see, they are all 'linked to the stronger form of cannabis- Skunk'.

If it were legal, the government would control supply, and could control the strength of available weed to be safe- i.e., no skunk available. Drug dealers couldn't possibly compete with Government prices, so wouldn't be supplying skunk or weed cut with anything else.

Profits wouldn't go to undesirable places, i.e. 'Terrorists!'.

It wouldn't lead to harder drugs, in fact it would lead less people to hard drugs as all users would get it from Government suppliers and it would cut their contact with drug dealers and the kind of people that taker other drugs.

People's mental health could be monitered to cut down on the minimal cases where use lead to mental health problems.

Needless to say overindulgence would be limited, as people could be limited to a certain allowance.

If it were more socially acceptable, a more responsible attitude would grow, as around drinking- people save it for the weekend, when they can deal with the after effects.

Studies have shown no correlation between legality and consumption- i.e. whether it is legal has no bearing on how many people have tried it, in a country. In other words, legalising would not lead to increased use.

Erm, I'm sure there's more, but my short term memories a bit dodgy.....

Opinions?
Is there anyone who actually disagrees?
Why?

It just seems so clear to me, I fail to see any counter arguments, so this is basically my curiousity about whether there's actually reasons, or if the government is just being an ass, as usual.

btw, I live in the UK. Yes, this probably means I have a prejudiced view of the USA. Most non-Americans do, for some reason.
However, this is also relevant to UK, although the situation is worse in the USA, so my prejudice shouldn't matter.
I do know some things about the situation over there, as fact, and I would say that I find it disgusting that casual users get shot and killed (in raids on their homes) for using a drug which has never killed anyone.

Oh, one thing- in a recent Uk newspaper article (national newspaper, horribly biased article twisting facts a long way from truth) they tried to say there is a scientific link between marijuana use and people who have commited murder- far as I know this is complete BS and the only truth here is that people who have commited murder have also been marijuana consumers- however marijuana use is so widespread that this is surely pretty irrelevant?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2s9mNjFC7lA&feature=related

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2s9mNjFC7lA&feature=related

wtf
NOT a rickroll?

I can see ill be keeping an eye on this thread to see just how many potheads infest NS

Everyone keep an eye on the numbers of votes in favor of it - it will show how doomed we are to a worldwide Pothead Paradise, and another step towards a rise in brain damage in society

pot is less dangerous than alcohol, and MUCH safer than tobacco, being both less addictive than both substances and impossible to overdose on. While a joint may have more tar than a cigarette, you don't smoke twenty joints a day, and if you use a bong, you get almost no tar at all. I really don't see any reason for pot to be illegal, other than taboo and a health system that tries to dogmatise kids into thinking that if they smoke pot, they'll go crazy and get arrested/steal something/destroy their little brother's birthday party/have AIDS.

Seeing as a drink alcohol it would seem a bit hypocritical of making Cannibis illegal. So i would make it legal, but i wouldn't encourage taking it.
So the option should be there, however it should be discouraged. Of course there are dangers to taking this, albeit not as dangerous as alcohol consumption but still it's a factor.
So i'm for it but, i wouldn't really like to see people taking it, just seems a waste of money as is alcohol really.

Rolling squid;13575207']pot is less dangerous than alcohol, and MUCH safer than tobacco, being both less addictive than both substances and impossible to overdose on. While a joint may have more tar than a cigarette, you don't smoke twenty joints a day, and if you use a bong, you get almost no tar at all. I really don't see any reason for pot to be illegal, other than taboo and a health system that tries to dogmatise kids into thinking that if they smoke pot, they'll go crazy and get arrested/steal something/destroy their little brother's birthday party/have AIDS.

Yeah but i dont see Alcoholics or Tobacco Smokers becoming lazy retards who sit on their ass all day playing console games, and that think playing music loud enough to be heard down the block fits within acceptable noise control limits

I can see ill be keeping an eye on this thread to see just how many potheads infest NS

Everyone keep an eye on the numbers of votes in favor of it - it will show how doomed we are to a worldwide Pothead Paradise, and another step towards a rise in brain damage in society

I take it you're against the use of marijuana then- your tone of writing is rather less than complimentary.
However, I stated that I was interested in WHY anyone would be, considering my above points?
What is this Pothead Paradise?
How and why do you see, resultant of Marijuana use, a 'rise in brain damage in society', and how do you see this being affected by the theoretical legalisation of marijuana use that I'm considering?

And, just while we're here, would you like to post some self analysis of your purpose and motivation in describing people who choose to smoke marijuana as an 'infestation'?

Rolling squid;13575207']pot is less dangerous than alcohol, and MUCH safer than tobacco, being both less addictive than both substances and impossible to overdose on. While a joint may have more tar than a cigarette, you don't smoke twenty joints a day, and if you use a bong, you get almost no tar at all. I really don't see any reason for pot to be illegal, other than taboo and a health system that tries to dogmatise kids into thinking that if they smoke pot, they'll go crazy and get arrested/steal something/destroy their little brother's birthday party/have AIDS.

just as a point of interest, marijuana can be smoked (edit: bad chose of word there :/ lol... give me a better one someone? found- credit to- my brain- replacement- consumed) using a vaporiser, meaning no smoke of ANY type, negating issues regarding tar and other poisen's, inhalation. Not that it's up to the government to FORCE us to stay healthy- only to try and educate/help us.

wtf
NOT a rickroll?

This one isn't either

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RMWXyEHoN88

Anyways, Marijuana- evil?
Professor Philosopher: No substance in itself is inherently good or evil. The More You Know rainbow logo flies overhead.
Opinions?
I'm with you all the way on this issue, although I would contend with one minor point that acceptance of marijuana would lead to more responsible use. Escaping responsibility is a major reason for most people using marijuana in the first place. :D

Yeah but i dont see Alcoholics or Tobacco Smokers becoming lazy retards who sit on their ass all day playing console games, and that think playing music loud enough to be heard down the block fits within acceptable noise control limits

And I don't see Marijuana smokers becoming rude, violent, noisy, antisocial louts, who think it's a great idea to stagger around the streets late at night, breaking things, dropping kebab wrappers in peoples front gardens, making non-alcoholics afraid to go out in the streets in certain areas on weekends, frequently starting fights and beating up/killing other people, raping / taking advantage of women, driving dangerously such that they often cause death, resulting in massive NHS expenditure on patching them up when they fall through windows or whatever (UK only, don't know about USA citizens paying tax for healthcare).
I also don't see them taking up a highly addictive and antisocial habit that results in long term health problems for them and anyone they force their habit upon, who create harmful social norms, and again, who take up massive amounts of your tax money on NHS care.

Also, your description would also fit perfectly well if you were just replying to a topic on 'teenagers- are they a pain in the ass'.
I entirely fail to see how any of your points are relevant just to people who smoke weed.
Are you saying that people are fit to carry on life as normal when drunk?
Often they are not, even for as much as the whole of the next day. So why should marijuana consumers?
Your point about loud music is ridiculous.

Btw people, I don't hate smokers or drinkers ;p I was just making a point.
Although my counter-stereotypes did rather ring true for drinkers, I had to struggle a bit for the anti-smokers ones.

Seeing as a drink alcohol it would seem a bit hypocritical of making Cannibis illegal. So i would make it legal, but i wouldn't encourage taking it.
So the option should be there, however it should be discouraged. Of course there are dangers to taking this, albeit not as dangerous as alcohol consumption but still it's a factor.
So i'm for it but, i wouldn't really like to see people taking it, just seems a waste of money as is alcohol really.

True, not everyone's gonna like it, and of course it is not ideal for your health- ditto drinking- as you said. Thank you for that point. And as with drinking, the government would inform people about the risks, and encourage them to consume responsibly.

After several years of being 'on the front lines' so to speak, I have had to deal with marijuana users and addicts regularly, and i have seen first hand the long term effects of its use

The users show a clear drop in motivation the longer they use it, in some cases becoming dealers of one level or another so they dont have to work to earn the cash they need

A number of the older ones who have had prolonged useage, and still work, go for jobs that do not require alot of practical effort - such as being a musician in a nightclub, or providing minimal assistance at the local city mission feeding the homeless so they can tell their manager at the welfare office that they are "working for a charity' and thus claim welfare without having to officially look for work.

Most potheads prefer the status quo, and become agitated when any outside force makes any attempt to interfere with this, including but not limited to: those who try to drive them towards jobs/ real jobs,...management powers that try to enforce the rules of tenancy such as noise regulations / disorderly behavious / etc,....and some generally abuse any individual in a law enforcement uniform because they represent a potential threat to the way they want to live

Weed should probably be legal and government controlled in a way like alcohol.

Pointing out how alcohol is worse isn't really convincing, though. All you're doing is showing how alcohol is bad; not why legalizing marijuana is good.

Weed should probably be legal and government controlled in a way like alcohol.

Pointing out how alcohol is worse isn't really convincing, though. All you're doing is showing how alcohol is bad; not why legalizing marijuana is good.

From a fiscal perspective, the gov. (the U.S. gov., anyway) could save substantial resources from not imprisoning potheads which it could use to imprison real criminals, fund old people's retirement, or health care, or da War on Terr'r, etc.

Professor Philosopher: No substance in itself is inherently good or evil. The More You Know rainbow logo flies overhead.

I'm with you all the way on this issue, although I would contend with one minor point that acceptance of marijuana would lead to more responsible use. Escaping responsibility is a major reason for most people using marijuana in the first place. :D

Ah... I meant, responsible in the way that it is consumed. I.E. in Amsterdam, it is smoked mostly in Cafe's, not in the streets or anything.
Because, if it were socially acceptable, then there would be social norms regarding its use.
Much as you'd think badly of someone who got drunk every day or all day.
However, this is not possible when we're supposed to just think badly of people who smoke it in general ;p
Leaving it for the weekend, and stuff.
This has been shown to happen in countries where it is legal.

There are millions of highly-functioning pot smokers in this world, including many bright, active and effective people. They're certainly less damaging to the world around them than those with alcohol issues.

But at it's fundamental level, the real question becomes why my behavior is anyone else's business. I'm reminded of H.L. Mencken's adage that Puritanism is "the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy."

Juan

And I don't see Marijuana smokers becoming rude, violent, noisy, antisocial louts, who think it's a great idea to stagger around the streets late at night, breaking things, dropping kebab wrappers in peoples front gardens, making non-alcoholics afraid to go out in the streets in certain areas on weekends, frequently starting fights and beating up/killing other people, raping / taking advantage of women, driving dangerously such that they often cause death, resulting in massive NHS expenditure on patching them up when they fall through windows or whatever.

oh, so having some pothead deal to your friends and family is much better than kicking a drunk guy off your front lawn. Having 30+ year old potheads who sit on their ass like 17 year olds is so much better

I'd rather have some drunk guy jump OUT a window onto the pavement and go splat than have a pothead jump IN a window looking for quick money for their next hit.

The only good thing about potheads is that they are much more entertaining to point and laugh at when they are wasted on their stuff

Weed should probably be legal and government controlled in a way like alcohol.

Pointing out how alcohol is worse isn't really convincing, though. All you're doing is showing how alcohol is bad; not why legalizing marijuana is good.

Tis relevant, because alcohol is legal ;p therefore something not as bad as it, tis illogical for that to be illegal :/
I guess the point that's trying to be made is, things that can be bad but not very bad, should be legal, as it's our choice as free individuals.
i.e. smoking, drinking- yes. Heroine- No. ;p
Pointing out the attitude shown towards drinking, and by drinkers, can make people think about the contradictions in attitude towards marijuana, and can also illustrate what things would be like if Marijuana use was legal.

There are millions of highly-functioning pot smokers in this world, including many bright, active and effective people. They're certainly less damaging to the world around them than those with alcohol issues.

But at it's fundamental level, the real question becomes why my behavior is anyone else's business. I'm reminded of H.L. Mencken's adage that Puritanism is "the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy."

Juan

very much agreed, on both points.

I chose not to go into issues about how much right the Government actually has to dictate how we live our lives, as it then becomes a controversial issue- whereas the reasons I gave for legalising Marijuana, seem very simple and hard to argue against- thus my posting this thread, to see if there were actually any decent counter arguments.

Eh, I have no problem with it. My best friend in high school was a pothead and he knew how to control himself and when not to get high. Personally I don't get what the big deal over it is...

Yeah but i dont see Alcoholics or Tobacco Smokers becoming lazy retards who sit on their ass all day playing console games, and that think playing music loud enough to be heard down the block fits within acceptable noise control limits

you've never seen an alcoholic then, have you?



After several years of being 'on the front lines' so to speak, I have had to deal with marijuana users and addicts regularly, and i have seen first hand the long term effects of its use

The users show a clear drop in motivation the longer they use it, in some cases becoming dealers of one level or another so they dont have to work to earn the cash they need

A number of the older ones who have had prolonged useage, and still work, go for jobs that do not require alot of practical effort - such as being a musician in a nightclub, or providing minimal assistance at the local city mission feeding the homeless so they can tell their manager at the welfare office that they are "working for a charity' and thus claim welfare without having to officially look for work.

Most potheads prefer the status quo, and become agitated when any outside force makes any attempt to interfere with this, including but not limited to: those who try to drive them towards jobs/ real jobs,...management powers that try to enforce the rules of tenancy such as noise regulations / disorderly behavious / etc,....and some generally abuse any individual in a law enforcement uniform because they represent a potential threat to the way they want to live

so because a substance can cause productive members of society to become less so, it should be banned? I assume you don't drink or smoke, correct?

Also, that is how you end up with over protective nanny states. which are a Very Bad Thing. (TM).

oh, so having some pothead deal to your friends and family is much better than kicking a drunk guy off your front lawn. Having 30+ year old potheads who sit on their ass like 17 year olds is so much better

I'd rather have some drunk guy jump OUT a window onto the pavement and go splat than have a pothead jump IN a window looking for quick money for their next hit.

The only good thing about potheads is that they are much more entertaining to point and laugh at when they are wasted on their stuff

Pot doesn't work that way. People don't go mad, looking for their next hit, the porple who do are on something else.

After several years of being 'on the front lines' so to speak, I have had to deal with marijuana users and addicts regularly, and i have seen first hand the long term effects of its use

The users show a clear drop in motivation the longer they use it, in some cases becoming dealers of one level or another so they dont have to work to earn the cash they need

A number of the older ones who have had prolonged useage, and still work, go for jobs that do not require alot of practical effort - such as being a musician in a nightclub, or providing minimal assistance at the local city mission feeding the homeless so they can tell their manager at the welfare office that they are "working for a charity' and thus claim welfare without having to officially look for work.

Most potheads prefer the status quo, and become agitated when any outside force makes any attempt to interfere with this, including but not limited to: those who try to drive them towards jobs/ real jobs,...management powers that try to enforce the rules of tenancy such as noise regulations / disorderly behavious / etc,....and some generally abuse any individual in a law enforcement uniform because they represent a potential threat to the way they want to live

*sigh* and if you'd worked instead, with alcoholics, what would your opinion be then?
And if you'd worked in a hospital emergency department dealing with the results of non-alcoholics, but people who go out drinking on weekend?
and if you'd worked in a differant department of the hospital, where they deal with people with lung cancer from smoking?

However, just as an example, a vast number of people with good jobs smoke marijuana.

I've never seen a 'pothead' have anything in particular against the police, except where they experience unfair or unacceptable treatment- and by this, I do NOT mean the normal response to the police catching you smoking a joint- I.E. the response that the law gives.

Of course heavy marijuana use is not going to result in the most socially compatable citizen ever, although I think you believe that the 'extreme cases' you seem surrounded by, because, I assume, your line of work... are the norm.

Legalising would, for reasons stated in OP, most likely result in a great cutdown in people who use marijuana in this way.

I don't smoke the stuff because its a tad crap campared to some other fun things out there (not to say I'm some sort of sick fuck who goes skydiving and never touches a drop) plus the pot crowd generally suck which is maybe why it isn't legal already

Yeah but i dont see Alcoholics or Tobacco Smokers becoming lazy retards who sit on their ass all day playing console games, and that think playing music loud enough to be heard down the block fits within acceptable noise control limits

er...do you smoke pot by any chance?;) also I think your confusing pot smokers with those who drink stella

This one isn't either

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

he must be hiding between the lines:cool: (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mj8a8IY60hU)

Tis relevant, because alcohol is legal ;p therefore something not as bad as it, tis illogical for that to be illegal :/
I guess the point that's trying to be made is, things that can be bad but not very bad, should be legal, as it's our choice as free individuals.
i.e. smoking, drinking- yes. Heroine- No. ;p
Pointing out the attitude shown towards drinking, and by drinkers, can make people think about the contradictions in attitude towards marijuana, and can also illustrate what things would be like if Marijuana use was legal.

It isn't illogical. If alcohol and marijuana had the same rates of usage, social history, etc. then it would be. But although they're both drugs, having a more dangerous drug legalized isn't by definition illogical, because there's still many differences.

oh, so having some pothead deal to your friends and family is much better than kicking a drunk guy off your front lawn. Having 30+ year old potheads who sit on their ass like 17 year olds is so much better

I'd rather have some drunk guy jump OUT a window onto the pavement and go splat than have a pothead jump IN a window looking for quick money for their next hit.

The only good thing about potheads is that they are much more entertaining to point and laugh at when they are wasted on their stuff

'potheads' don't vandalise, kill, rape, or cause death by dangerious driving.
Alcoholics, and indeed quite normal drinkers, do. Regularly. En Masse.
As far as I'm aware, 'potheads' don't tend to steal either.

If it were legalised, no 'pothead' is going to be dealing to your family. No one's going to be able to sell illegally, cheaper than the government would supply, legally. So no one's gonna buy from them.

I did say that there were some issues around marijuana use, but that as far as I could see they all disappeared if it gets legalised.

List of some highly-effective famous people who are/were daily pot smokers:

- Louis Armstrong
- Thomas Jefferson
- Jonas Salk
- Paul McCartney
- Herman Melville
- Golda Meir
- Michael Eisner
- Saint Augustine
- Bob Eubanks
- Condolleeza Rice


Juan

Omg, my first thread on these forums- I'm so nervous and excited.

This thread has been done a million times.

Anyways, Marijuana- evil? Or harmless?

Neither. It's harmful and not evil.

There's this weird thing in America where marijuana is thought to badly of, whereas it's much more accepted in other countries... I am aware this is an opinion formed from limited knowledge, but for instance Marijuana use has been pretty much accepted, (to varying degrees of implicit/outright) in the last 3 places I've worked- not while at work, I hasten to add-.....

Where were those places?

And is so harshly treated by the law, and police efforts. Although Britain, needless to say, will try and copy America's stance, soon.

:rolleyes:

Basically, I disagree with many of the issues that are claimed, for Marijuana use- However, even if all but the most ridiculous were assumed true, I have never found an argument against it that is not invalidated were it legal.
For instance, all the mental health issues that are now becoming 'scientifically' proven- as far as I can see, they are all 'linked to the stronger form of cannabis- Skunk'.

I have to disagree with you there. There are definitely can be mental health issues caused my marijuana, including paranoia and worsening of schitzophrenia (in those who are already suseptible).

Also, when buying pot, you can't guarentee you're getting strong or weak cannibus. This is why the legalisation of marijuana would be helpful, because it would be govenment regulated so you knew exactly what you were getting.

If it were legal, the government would control supply, and could control the strength of available weed to be safe- i.e., no skunk available. Drug dealers couldn't possibly compete with Government prices, so wouldn't be supplying skunk or weed cut with anything else.

I'm not quite sure why 'skunk' has come into it, but I agree with you about government regulation. I belief if the government regulated it there would be less health concerns assosiated with it. Also, if people were able to purchase proper smoking equipment (instead of home made bongs) you could irradicate some of the other ill health affects. For example, smoking pot using an alfoil cone piece is apparently harmful.

Profits wouldn't go to undesirable places, i.e. 'Terrorists!'.

Well, in America they probably would still be funding them...

It wouldn't lead to harder drugs, in fact it would lead less people to hard drugs as all users would get it from Government suppliers and it would cut their contact with drug dealers and the kind of people that taker other drugs.

I think the problem is that people would go "hey, you've legalised pot, why can't speed and E be legal too? Who are you to govern what I put in my body?"

People's mental health could be monitered to cut down on the minimal cases where use lead to mental health problems.

Well, yes, but it would cost money.

Needless to say overindulgence would be limited, as people could be limited to a certain allowance.

What?

You don't limit people buying cigarettes and you don't limit alcohol. How can you limit pot?

If it were more socially acceptable, a more responsible attitude would grow, as around drinking- people save it for the weekend, when they can deal with the after effects.

I agree with you there.

Studies have shown no correlation between legality and consumption- i.e. whether it is legal has no bearing on how many people have tried it, in a country. In other words, legalising would not lead to increased use.

I think that there might be a few more users, but coupled with education (similar to anti-smoking ads) people would be able to make educated choices on whether they want to smoke it or not.

Is there anyone who actually disagrees?
Why?

Of course there will be people who disgaree.

It just seems so clear to me, I fail to see any counter arguments, so this is basically my curiousity about whether there's actually reasons, or if the government is just being an ass, as usual.

Of course there are reasons.

btw, I live in the UK. Yes, this probably means I have a prejudiced view of the USA. Most non-Americans do, for some reason.

This thread was about pot. You didn't really need to bring America into it.

However, this is also relevant to UK, although the situation is worse in the USA, so my prejudice shouldn't matter.
I do know some things about the situation over there, as fact, and I would say that I find it disgusting that casual users get shot and killed (in raids on their homes) for using a drug which has never killed anyone.

Read "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser. It has information about people being jailed in America for cannibis.

Rolling squid;13575354']so because a substance can cause productive members of society to become less so, it should be banned? I assume you don't drink or smoke, correct?

Also, that is how you end up with over protective nanny states. which are a Very Bad Thing. (TM).



Pot doesn't work that way. People don't go mad, looking for their next hit, the people who do are on something else.


Thank you

wtf
NOT a rickroll?

Wikroll, to trick someone into clicking a link thinking it will be Rick Astley "Never Gonna Give You Up", when actually it is to a source of relevant information.

List of some highly-effective famous people who are/were daily pot smokers:

- Louis Armstrong
- Thomas Jefferson
- Jonas Salk
- Paul McCartney
- Herman Melville
- Golda Meir
- Michael Eisner
- Saint Augustine
- Bob Eubanks
- Condolleeza Rice


Juan
Do you have sources? I'm fairly certain Rice does not smoke pot now, but she might have in the past. I don't see how Augustine could have, as he lived in fifth-century Hippo.

Do you have sources? I'm fairly certain Rice does not smoke pot now, but she might have in the past. I don't see how Augustine could have, as he lived in fifth-century Hippo.

North Africa used to grow a lot of hemp.

I can see ill be keeping an eye on this thread to see just how many potheads infest NS

Everyone keep an eye on the numbers of votes in favor of it - it will show how doomed we are to a worldwide Pothead Paradise, and another step towards a rise in brain damage in society

ZOMGZ WE'RE DOOMED!!!1!!!!!!1one!

Yeah but i dont see Alcoholics or Tobacco Smokers becoming lazy retards who sit on their ass all day playing console games, and that think playing music loud enough to be heard down the block fits within acceptable noise control limits

You clearly need to educate yourself.
1. If drink it doesn't automatically make you an alcoholic, and people some people who are alcoholics sit on their ass all day.
2. People who smoke pot aren't automatically stoners, and people who smoke pot don't necessarily sit on their ass all day either. Smoking pot occasionally doesn't mean you play console games, or play music too loudly.
3. Playing music way too loudly or sitting on your ass all day playing Playstation has nothing to do with drugs at all. If you're an asshole who disturbs the peace, or a slacker who doesn't do any sort of activity at all, that's what you are: an asshole or a slacker. You don't have to smoke pot to be either of those things.

oh, so having some pothead deal to your friends and family is much better than kicking a drunk guy off your front lawn. Having 30+ year old potheads who sit on their ass like 17 year olds is so much better

4. Not all people who smoke pot deal.
5. Why the fuck would there be a drunk guy on your lawn? And isn't someone who gives alcohol to children equally as bad as someone who would deal to children?
6. You've clearly watched too much FOX News. Not everyone who smokes pot sits on their ass all day!

I'd rather have some drunk guy jump OUT a window onto the pavement and go splat than have a pothead jump IN a window looking for quick money for their next hit.

7. I personally wouldn't like it if anyone died from jumping out of a window.
8. Pot is not addictive, and no "pothead" is going to jump in your window to steal money for a "hit". Pot isn't like that. You don't crave it, and you certaily wouldn't break into someone's home to get money for it. People who would go that far would more likely be crystal meth or heroin addicts.

The only good thing about potheads is that they are much more entertaining to point and laugh at when they are wasted on their stuff

10. What makes you think you can even tell if someone has been smoking?
11. Google - it's your friend.

Of course heavy marijuana use is not going to result in the most socially compatable citizen ever, although I think you believe that the 'extreme cases' you seem surrounded by, because, I assume, your line of work... are the norm.

Legalising would, for reasons stated in OP, most likely result in a great cutdown in people who use marijuana in this way.

Extreme cases?
Any level of marijuana use has its negative effect on the individual, the only variable is the level of use determines how long it takes to corrupt the user.

Legalizing it would remove the fear of being caught, and actually raise the number of casual users and bring more frequent users out of hiding.

Much as legalizing it would kill a section of power that drug dealers have with it, you would have so many underage kids getting their hands on it and damaging themselves from earlier ages

technically speaking, it is morally better having kids spend their pocket money on junk food and becoming overweight blobs, that CAN be helped, than having kids come to school stoned and not paying attention in class because everything looks funny to them

Hell, i knew one guy who came to computer class stoned, and spent nearly 30 minutes laughing at that the backspace key deleted things off the screen

addicts[/B].

10. What makes you think you can even tell if someone has been smoking?.

Ive seen plenty of potheads who cant live without it - one going as far as sounding likes hes coughing chunks out of his lungs until he smokes some, and goes back to 'normal'

Aside from smelling like it, alot of the potheads ive dealt with tend to have that half-asleep look in their eyes, sometimes also bloodshot,...and they are easily entertained or irritated.
Some also develop that certain 'wild' look to their face that gives it away

Extreme cases?
Any level of marijuana use has its negative effect on the individual, the only variable is the level of use determines how long it takes to corrupt the user.

Legalizing it would remove the fear of being caught, and actually raise the number of casual users and bring more frequent users out of hiding.

Much as legalizing it would kill a section of power that drug dealers have with it, you would have so many underage kids getting their hands on it and damaging themselves from earlier ages

technically speaking, it is morally better having kids spend their pocket money on junk food and becoming overweight blobs, that CAN be helped, than having kids come to school stoned and not paying attention in class because everything looks funny to them

Hell, i knew one guy who came to computer class stoned, and spent nearly 30 minutes laughing at that the backspace key deleted things off the screen

right. As opposed to underage kids getting their hands on it anyways? half the arrests that we make on kids for pot are middle school kids who stole it off their older siblings. And BTW, many of the people who do use pot either do it our of curiosity, or do it because it's illegal. If you want to make something popular, just outlaw it.

This thread has been done a million times.
I expect so, although no one else has complained about any repetitiveness there may be in my posts yet. Also, I expect that my reason for posting- looking for opposing arguments- may be new. Anyway, Sorry... tbh most topics have :/



Neither. It's harmful and not evil.

Petty- you've taken most of my OP far too literally. I think you knew this.



Where were those places?
A cosmetics factory- we smoked all through the day, on breaks- would've been trouble if management had caught us, but we weren't very sly, and it was just monotonous work so really made little differance to quality of work.
A tesco's express store where quite a few members of staff smoked it, without effect on their work, however mangement/supervisors were unaware, and, as far as I know, did not smoke.
A tesco's express store where most of the higher ranked members of staff smoked it, including the manager- again without effecting their work.
No one at either of the Tesco's stores smoked at, or before work.
And yes, these are not highly skilled jobs I've worked in- before anyone asks, my lack of achievement in education was the result of lack of motivation due to severe clinical depression. Not caused by marijuana either- this was BEFORE I started smoking. Indeed, weed was the only thing that lifted my mood, including antidepressants and therapy.


:rolleyes:

*shrug*


I have to disagree with you there. There are definitely can be mental health issues caused my marijuana, including paranoia and worsening of schitzophrenia (in those who are already suseptible).

Also, when buying pot, you can't guarentee you're getting strong or weak cannibus. This is why the legalisation of marijuana would be helpful, because it would be govenment regulated so you knew exactly what you were getting.

As you mentioned-
I am talking about if it were legal- in which case people wouldn't be smoking skunk- the stronger forms.
As far as I can see, no scientific study has linked marijuana to mental health problems, except the stronger 'skunk' varieties. If you can show otherwise, please do.
I believe it (lower strength weed) can cause problems very occasionally. So do most things ;p (cause problems occasionally).


I'm not quite sure why 'skunk' has come into it, but I agree with you about government regulation. I belief if the government regulated it there would be less health concerns assosiated with it. Also, if people were able to purchase proper smoking equipment (instead of home made bongs) you could irradicate some of the other ill health affects. For example, smoking pot using an alfoil cone piece is apparently harmful.
Because I am not aware of proven mental health concerns from marijuana, other than 'skunk' varieties. And if it were legalised, the government would not make skunk available.
Erm, you kinda answered your own question though.



Well, in America they probably would still be funding them...

lol :/


I think the problem is that people would go "hey, you've legalised pot, why can't speed and E be legal too? Who are you to govern what I put in my body?"

Because these have proven serious health risks, are proven highly addictive, can kill in one dose, easy to OD on, can lead to crime, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... I could go on all day if I actually researched this ;p


Well, yes, but it would cost money.

More money than the fight against marijuana, and cost of prosecuting and punishing users? Nope.
Anyway, the cost would be paid for from tax on marijuana. It would still end up cheaper than it currently is, so no one's gonna mind.
Also, tourism revenue- think of Amsterdam. And trade revenue- there's a whole industry created....


What?

You don't limit people buying cigarettes and you don't limit alcohol. How can you limit pot?
How? same way you limit prescription medicine. Just as an example. I had simply assumed, that at least at first, the government would not allow people to buy as much as they liked at any one time.
Again, re Amsterdam, where the amounts you can purchase are limited.


I agree with you there.

Cool :D


I think that there might be a few more users, but coupled with education (similar to anti-smoking ads) people would be able to make educated choices on whether they want to smoke it or not.

Well, studies suggest otherwise ;p but no big deal, as you think it's not a big problem either way.
I hate the way government info on the subject is mainly propganda atmo (UK) :( some of it is pretty inaccurate.


Of course there will be people who disgaree.Petty.


Of course there are reasons.
Petty.
(they were rhetorical questions... this seems obvious to me)


This thread was about pot. You didn't really need to bring America into it.

more sigh... I don't hate America. I dislike plenty about it though. But I dislike things about the UK too. So I mentioned something not completely on topic. Everyone else managed to realise that this wasn't what I cared about, and ignored it.


Read "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser. It has information about people being jailed in America for cannibis.[/QUOTE]

I heard that they don't cast a shadow in a mirror.

Juan

Extreme cases?
Any level of marijuana use has its negative effect on the individual, the only variable is the level of use determines how long it takes to corrupt the user.

Are you distantly related to Reagan?

1. Pot doesn't "corrupt" people. It's a fucking plant. Plants don't corrupt people. Inatimate objects don't corrupt people.

2. Drinking also has negative effects.

Legalizing it would remove the fear of being caught, and actually raise the number of casual users and bring more frequent users out of hiding.

That's why legalisation would be coupled with education.

Much as legalizing it would kill a section of power that drug dealers have with it, you would have so many underage kids getting their hands on it and damaging themselves from earlier ages

This is incorrect. You can see a drug dealer at any age. If marijuana was legalised, it would be just like drinking - you'd have to be over 18 (or 21) to purchase it.

technically speaking, it is morally better having kids spend their pocket money on junk food and becoming overweight blobs, that CAN be helped, than having kids come to school stoned and not paying attention in class because everything looks funny to them

You are so delusional.

Children should be able to buy junk food if they want to, but buying junk food doesn't automatically make you overweight. This is why EDUCATION exists. Most kids understand that too much junk food will make you fat, and that it's good to eat healthily. It's not "morally better" to allow children to become overweight, and it can't always be helped. Childhood obesity is a huge health problem, but education and good parenting can prevent this.

It's the same with marijuana. If people are educated about the ill effects, they will understand that - like junk food - marijuana should be smoked in moderation.

Children would not be able to purchase pot. Like I said, if it were legal, it would probably be harder for them. Children who are able to access alcohol don't come to school drunk, so what makes you think that children who somehow had access to pot would come to school high?

I smoke pot and I assure you, I pay attention in every single lecture I go to.

Hell, i knew one guy who came to computer class stoned, and spent nearly 30 minutes laughing at that the backspace key deleted things off the screen

So? Your friend's a loser.

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

I just wish it caused sterility, then i wouldnt be worrying about the future because if potheads cant reproduce, all we have to do is eliminate the drug and let the former users grow old and die, without causing the potential of inherited addictions

Extreme cases?
Any level of marijuana use has its negative effect on the individual, the only variable is the level of use determines how long it takes to corrupt the user.

Legalizing it would remove the fear of being caught, and actually raise the number of casual users and bring more frequent users out of hiding.

Much as legalizing it would kill a section of power that drug dealers have with it, you would have so many underage kids getting their hands on it and damaging themselves from earlier ages

technically speaking, it is morally better having kids spend their pocket money on junk food and becoming overweight blobs, that CAN be helped, than having kids come to school stoned and not paying attention in class because everything looks funny to them

Hell, i knew one guy who came to computer class stoned, and spent nearly 30 minutes laughing at that the backspace key deleted things off the screen
I said studies have shown no correlation between whether it's legal, and the proportion of people who have tried it/ use it.
This means that legalising WILL NOT result in increased use.


Many fun things in life have a negative effect.

Why on Earth would legalisation result in more 'young children' getting hold of it? Clearly there would be an age restriction for use, and that could be enforced, as it is with alcohol and smoking. Unlike the current state of affairs, where anyone can get it. And they do.

Legalisation would bring it out into a public forum and make it subject to public opinions on acceptable use- coming to school high would likely become as unnaceptable as coming to school drunk. It happens, but hardly ever.
Now, however, those who use, do what they want- it's illegal anyway, who cares about responsible use?



Ive seen plenty of potheads who cant live without it - one going as far as sounding likes hes coughing chunks out of his lungs until he smokes some, and goes back to 'normal'


erm.... Marijuana relaxes the muscles of the throat and chest... it would help if someone had a bad cough ;p
And if they'd used a vaporiser, they wouldn't have the harm from the smoke either.
This has been shown to be an almost miraculous cure for asthma.

Petty- you've taken most of my OP far too literally. I think you knew this.

No. It wasn't petty. You asked whether we thought pot was evil or harmless, and I explained that I thought it was neither.



A cosmetics factory- we smoked all through the day, on breaks- would've been trouble if management had caught us, but we weren't very sly, and it was just monotonous work so really made little differance to quality of work.
A tesco's express store where quite a few members of staff smoked it, without effect on their work, however mangement/supervisors were unaware, and, as far as I know, did not smoke.
A tesco's express store where most of the higher ranked members of staff smoked it, including the manager- again without effecting their work.
No one at either of the Tesco's stores smoked at, or before work.

So they were all in the UK? I thought you meant different countries.

And yes, these are not highly skilled jobs I've worked in- before anyone asks, my lack of achievement in education was the result of lack of motivation due to severe clinical depression. Not caused by marijuana either- this was BEFORE I started smoking. Indeed, weed was the only thing that lifted my mood, including antidepressants and therapy.

I wasn't going to ask. A lot of people here suffer from mental illness: you're not alone.


*shrug*

:rolleyes:


And if it were legalised, the government would not make skunk available.

Yeh, I pretty much agreed with you that the government would be able to regulate it.

Erm, you kinda answered your own question though.

I didn't ask a question. I agreed with you. Is that so hard to understand?


Because these have proven serious health risks, are proven highly addictive, can kill in one dose, easy to OD on, can lead to crime, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... I could go on all day if I actually researched this ;p

You should actually research this.

Of course there are proven serious health risks: I didn't say there weren't. I said 'the problem is that people would go "hey, you've legalised pot, why can't speed and E be legal too? Who are you to govern what I put in my body?"'


How? same way you limit prescription medicine. Just as an example. I had simply assumed, that at least at first, the government would not allow people to buy as much as they liked at any one time.

Personally I think it should be sold in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes, rather than at a chemist.

I hate the way government info on the subject is mainly propganda atmo (UK) :( some of it is pretty inaccurate.

During the Reagan era there were all these "pot will make your son gay" ads, apparently.

Petty.

It really wasn't. It was pathetic to ask "is there anyone who actually disagrees".


more sigh... I don't hate America. I dislike plenty about it though. But I dislike things about the UK too. So I mentioned something not completely on topic. Everyone else managed to realise that this wasn't what I cared about, and ignored it.

I'm not going to ignore bullshit put into a thread just because you personally dislike America. I dislike the USA but I don't need to rant about it in my threads.

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

I just wish it caused sterility, then i wouldnt be worrying about the future because if potheads cant reproduce, all we have to do is eliminate the drug and let the former users grow old and die, without causing the potential of inherited addictions

You can't be addicted to marijuana. Educate yourself.

Ive seen plenty of potheads who cant live without it - one going as far as sounding likes hes coughing chunks out of his lungs until he smokes some, and goes back to 'normal'

Aside from smelling like it, alot of the potheads ive dealt with tend to have that half-asleep look in their eyes, sometimes also bloodshot,...and they are easily entertained or irritated.
Some also develop that certain 'wild' look to their face that gives it away

and... pot is not chemically addictive.
It does not make your brain crave it- like, for instance, McDonalds does (yes, monosodium glutemate, favorite ingredient of your friendly neighbourhood fast food resteraunt, is chemically addictive- it makes the brain want more).
Pot is addictive only in as much as people tend to want things that make them feel good.
It is addictive in the same way as nice food, and sunny days are :/
One can hardly find an issue with this kind of addictiveness- because it's nice.

It is CHEMICALLY addicted people that will steal, kill, etc, for money for their hit.

Your example of an 'extremly addicted pothead' was not particularly impressive. If that's the worst you've had to deal with regarding addiction...

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

I just wish it caused sterility, then i wouldnt be worrying about the future because if potheads cant reproduce, all we have to do is eliminate the drug and let the former users grow old and die, without causing the potential of inherited addictions

hey, here's an idea! how about try arguing with facts, like all the so called 'potheads' are doing, instead of just spouting anti-drug propaganda like a grade school health teacher. Then we might take you seriously.

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

Ill say this once. Just because we dont support enforcing our morals on everyone else and dont support a nanny state doesnt mean we smoke pot. Ive never touched the stuff in my life, and I voted yes.

I said it nicely the first time, which is more than I usually do for your posts.

Are you distantly related to Reagan?

1. Pot doesn't "corrupt" people. It's a fucking plant. Plants don't corrupt people. Inatimate objects don't corrupt people.

That's why legalisation would be coupled with education.

This is incorrect. You can see a drug dealer at any age. If marijuana was legalised, it would be just like drinking - you'd have to be over 18 (or 21) to purchase it.

Children should be able to buy junk food if they want to, but buying junk food doesn't automatically make you overweight. This is why EDUCATION exists. Most kids understand that too much junk food will make you fat, and that it's good to eat healthily. It's not "morally better" to allow children to become overweight, and it can't always be helped. Childhood obesity is a huge health problem, but education and good parenting can prevent this.

It's the same with marijuana. If people are educated about the ill effects, they will understand that - like junk food - marijuana should be smoked in moderation.
.

Legal age limits?
Education?

Ive seen kids barely in their teens hooked on marijuana, and their being that young means they are young, restless and arrogant,
Them being of those ages already makes them hard to control and educate, but get them on marijuana only triples that problem

Ive seen 13+ year old girls hook up with 35 year old men, and give them sex in exchange for drugs or money to buy them,
Ive seen guys struggle through school and have to sign up for the army because they lack proper education to get normal jobs

Users who are almost 30 and still living with their parents, and sponging support from them,......marriages on the rocks because the partner who uses is too relaxed about real-life issues in the relationship,....guys getting stoned and trying to cook, only to pass out and nearly burn their place down,...not to mention stoners who get into assault charges because when they're high, they cant keep their temper in check.

Would you mind 'educating' them for me?

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

I just wish it caused sterility, then i wouldnt be worrying about the future because if potheads cant reproduce, all we have to do is eliminate the drug and let the former users grow old and die, without causing the potential of inherited addictions

As far as i know i'm not a pothead, although i can imagine some discomfort with having a head made from clay. (ohh such an easy way to reference this to the discworld)
I know lots of people who have smoked Pot or Cannibis, and they've turned out okay.
It's a waste of money, but it should be legalised. considering the dangers of alchohol in comparison i think the only thing stopping it being legalised in the UK is the loss of voters. which is a shame.
Being addicted to things can occur with other substances as well, i could include even tea, Coffee, prescripted drugs a whole range of things which are addictive, even chocolate. mmmmm chocolate is tasty.

Legal age limits?
Education?

Ive seen kids barely in their teens hooked on marijuana, and their being that young means they are young, restless and arrogant,
Them being of those ages already makes them hard to control and educate, but get them on marijuana only triples that problem

Ive seen 13+ year old girls hook up with 35 year old men, and give them sex in exchange for drugs or money to buy them,
Ive seen guys struggle through school and have to sign up for the army because they lack proper education to get normal jobs

Users who are almost 30 and still living with their parents, and sponging support from them,......marriages on the rocks because the partner who uses is too relaxed about real-life issues in the relationship,....guys getting stoned and trying to cook, only to pass out and nearly burn their place down,...not to mention stoners who get into assault charges because when they're high, they cant keep their temper in check.

Would you mind 'educating' them for me?

pot is a sedative, so your last example fails. Also, pot is not physically addictive, it can be mentally, but a semi-strong exertion of will power renders that moot. Most of the 'potheads' you speak of are on something else. (people do lace pot with other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and the like, but legalizing it will completely take that factor way, as the gov't will control the supply.

Ive seen kids barely in their teens hooked on marijuana, and their being that young means they are young, restless and arrogant,
Them being of those ages already makes them hard to control and educate, but get them on marijuana only triples that problem


And I know kids who got into Ivy League schools who were pot heads.

ps- One cannot develop a physical addiction to pot

Ive seen 13+ year old girls hook up with 35 year old men, and give them sex in exchange for drugs or money to buy them

You sure it wasnt for coke?

Ive seen guys struggle through school and have to sign up for the army because they lack proper education to get normal jobs

That happens without pot as well.

Users who are almost 30 and still living with their parents, and sponging support from them,......marriages on the rocks because the partner who uses is too relaxed about real-life issues in the relationship,....guys getting stoned and trying to cook, only to pass out and nearly burn their place down,...

Mmmm nanny state....

not to mention stoners who get into assault charges because when they're high, they cant keep their temper in check.

Holy sweet Jesus now I KNOW you dont know what youre talking about. Pot does not make one aggressive. At all. They were on something else. You just apperantly cant tell the difference.

Would you mind 'educating' them for me?

Hopefully she'll educate you first.


In your post you are assuming that the reason their lives are crappy is because they smoke pot. In reality, what is more likely is they smoke pot because their lives are crappy.

You clearly dont know much about pot, and are confusing it with other drugs rather conistantly. It might be laced, but legalizing it would remove that issue. How often does one get laced cigarettes from a gas station? Never.

No. It wasn't petty. You asked whether we thought pot was evil or harmless, and I explained that I thought it was neither.
it was a rhetorical question.





So they were all in the UK? I thought you meant different countries.

yes


I wasn't going to ask. A lot of people here suffer from mental illness: you're not alone.

Thanks- it just seemed the obvious assumption for anti-marijuana readers to make.



:rolleyes:

*shrugs*



Yeh, I pretty much agreed with you that the government would be able to regulate it.



I didn't ask a question. I agreed with you. Is that so hard to understand?

not exactly a question, but I'm not quite sure why 'skunk' has come into it, was what I was referring to.


You should actually research this.

Of course there are proven serious health risks: I didn't say there weren't. I said 'the problem is that people would go "hey, you've legalised pot, why can't speed and E be legal too? Who are you to govern what I put in my body?"'

And I gave the answer the government would give to those people ;p



Personally I think it should be sold in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes, rather than at a chemist.

I'm not sure which I think is best- I know which I'd prefer, but it seems that valid concerns people have would be assauged (right word? right spelling? :/ ) if a person's supply were limited.
Maybe, at least until a responsible culture and attitude had grown up around it. A good compromise?


It really wasn't. It was pathetic to ask "is there anyone who actually disagrees".
rhetorical question. Again.



I'm not going to ignore bullshit put into a thread just because you personally dislike America. I dislike the USA but I don't need to rant about it in my threads.
Again, I don't dislike America- I dislike things about it. It was an off topic side-point, not a rant, and I feel that we as debators should make our best attempt to take other people's words as they were intended, not as they absolutely literally are laid down- otherwise we end up arguing petty and irrelevant points, when there was often no basic disagreement in the first place.
Of course this extends only to cases where the reader can be reasonably expected to be able to tell what the intent of a piece of writing was, and where said intent is a minor issue irrelevant to the main issue at debate.
Furthermore, I don't see how you qualify my irrelevancy as bullshit :p

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

I just wish it caused sterility, then i wouldnt be worrying about the future because if potheads cant reproduce, all we have to do is eliminate the drug and let the former users grow old and die, without causing the potential of inherited addictions

It would be very interesting to be able to add another quote-
Will all, and only, people who voted in vote #1 answer this question
Do you smoke marijuana regularly?
Yes
No

Because I would point out to Mr Kirchensittenbach that just because people have voted for legalisation, doesn't mean they are consumers themselves...
There are plenty of reasons they could be for legalisation, other than just wanted to be able to buy marijuana cheaply, easily and legally.

Edit- Knights of Liberty got there before me, and even answered my question. Thanks :)

Edit- Knights of Liberty got there before me, and even answered my question. Thanks :)

;)

Wikroll, to trick someone into clicking a link thinking it will be Rick Astley "Never Gonna Give You Up", when actually it is to a source of relevant information.

lolz :p

It would be very interesting to be able to add another quote-
Will all, and only, people who voted in vote #1 answer this question
Do you smoke marijuana regularly?
Yes
No

Because I would point out to Mr Kirchensittenbach that just because people have voted for legalisation, doesn't mean they are consumers themselves...
There are plenty of reasons they could be for legalisation, other than just wanted to be able to buy marijuana cheaply, easily and legally.

Edit- Knights of Liberty got there before me, and even answered my question. Thanks :)

You could make that the topic for a seperate thread.
But i voted to legalise it, and i don't smoke marijuana.

Legal age limits?

Yes.

Education?

Yes.

Ive seen kids barely in their teens hooked on marijuana, and their being that young means they are young, restless and arrogant,

1. You can't be chemically "hooked" on marijuana.
2. You love to stereotype don't you? Young people aren't all like that.

Them being of those ages already makes them hard to control and educate

No, it doesn't. You just need education that works.

The anti-smoking campaigns in my country have been highly succesful. Most teenagers and children see smoking as very unhealthy, totally "un-cool" and a lot of my friends have never touched a cigarette in their life, and a larger majority of them very rarely smoke or do not smoke at all.

but get them on marijuana only triples that problem

Evidence, where?

Ive seen 13+ year old girls hook up with 35 year old men, and give them sex in exchange for drugs or money to buy them,

So? That makes them whores. That has nothing to do with pot. If they were actually trying to get pot (which I tend to doubt), legalisation would actually lessen the problem.

Ive seen guys struggle through school and have to sign up for the army because they lack proper education to get normal jobs

Again, that has nothing to do with pot. They is because of a poor education system.

Users who are almost 30 and still living with their parents, and sponging support from them,......

Where did you get this information from? A Friends episode?

I do not know ANYONE who is 30 and lives at home, and if a 30-year-old was still living at home and doing nothing to support himself, that makes him lazy, not a 'pothead'.

marriages on the rocks because the partner who uses is too relaxed about real-life issues in the relationship,....

It's not pot's fault if people can't handle their relationships.

guys getting stoned and trying to cook, only to pass out and nearly burn their place down,...

One example, please?

not to mention stoners who get into assault charges because when they're high, they cant keep their temper in check.

This example fails. Pot is a sedative.

Would you mind 'educating' them for me?

Sure. Fund me, and I'll come over to your country, become a politician and I'll happily educate them. :D

Legal age limits?
Education?

Ive seen kids barely in their teens hooked on marijuana, and their being that young means they are young, restless and arrogant,
Them being of those ages already makes them hard to control and educate, but get them on marijuana only triples that problem

Ive seen 13+ year old girls hook up with 35 year old men, and give them sex in exchange for drugs or money to buy them,
Ive seen guys struggle through school and have to sign up for the army because they lack proper education to get normal jobs

Users who are almost 30 and still living with their parents, and sponging support from them,......marriages on the rocks because the partner who uses is too relaxed about real-life issues in the relationship,....guys getting stoned and trying to cook, only to pass out and nearly burn their place down,...not to mention stoners who get into assault charges because when they're high, they cant keep their temper in check.

Would you mind 'educating' them for me?

Once again, legalisation removes most of these problems, even if they are true.
Btw, would you like to tell us, what IS your job? that puts you on the 'front lines'?

You fail to consider, in all these cases, whether it is the situation a person is already in, that makes them smoke marijuana in a harmful way, or whether it is the marijuana that puts them in this situation.

Because many people would do these things and be in these situations anyway. It is people who would tend to do well, but end up doing badly because of marijuana, that would be better examples....

the bit about people getting done for assault because they're high- bullshit, unless you can provide scientific evidence of a link between anger and weed.
As I SAID in my my OP, newspapers have linked weed smoking to murder- however, I see only that someone who would have killed, anyway, happened to smoke weed, and the writer is taking this connection backwards. As I have never seen any scientific study or evidence for a link between weed smoking, and violence.

And about trying to cook and almost setting the house on fire- Recorded deaths from marijuana- 0. That INCLUDES people who have died from dangerous driving due to weed, or any other unsafe practise.
May I restate..... 0.

we now have 2 people who support legalisation, but don't smoke it themselves :) ++ points for ... well... everyone except Kirchensittenbach ;p

Meh, I wanna hear from the 3 other people who voted 'make it highly illegal'.. but who havn't said anything.
Unless Kirchen likes to clear teh cookies on his browser ;p
Oh s**t, I mentioned cookies... *cue thread derailment*

[QUOTE=MrBobby;13575679]Once again, legalisation removes most of these problems, even if they are true.
Btw, would you like to tell us, what IS your job? that puts you on the 'front lines'?[quote]


This poster claims hes a cop. He also says all blacks are criminals and there is some jewish conspirecy in control of the media keeping everyone else down.

Well, I definitely think it should be legalised under certain conditions. The current method of dealing with drugs is silly; it creates a black market, it's uncontrollable by the government, and it doesn't solve the basic problem that there are people who destroy their own livelihoods and damage their own health by buying copious amounts of unregulated drugs (when some are much, much worse than marijuana) and taking them in such large dosages that eventually lead to death. We have to accept that people will experiment with drugs no matter what, and that it would make a lot more sense if they were to do so under the watchful eye of the government, as opposed to experimenting in an apathetic and money driven environment that harms society.

Just to the model, I would suggest that the government introduces legislation allowing the production, manufacture, and trading of marijuana under certain government pre-approved restrictions. For a start:

1) All persons wanting to produce, manufacture, advertise, sell, buy, or otherwise trade marijuana would be required to have the relevant certificate from the newly created Department for the Regulation and Control of Drugs (DRCD).
2) No person previously effected by any physical, psychological, or medical condition, deemed by the DRCD to be dangerously incompatible with any level of drug usage, may be granted any form of certificate from the DRCD.
3) No more than 20g (is this too much? I am not familiar with drug dosages, so I'm open to suggestions on this point) can be sold to any person by any business, or legislatively approved businessperson every month.
4) All businesses, enterprises, or persons involved in the production, manufacture, trading, or consuming of marijuana be required to submit a Receipt of Purchase and Trade to the duly authorised Tax authorities of the nation in question.
5) All businesses, enterprises or individuals involved in the production or manufacture of marijuana:
a) Would be required to stick to the Quality Control laws and statutes provided by any governmental department;
b) Must immediately respond with full compliance to any suggestion, request, order, audit, and any form of legal or executive notice or order from the DRCD.
6) All businesses, enterprises or individuals involved in the trading, advertising, or service industry of marijuana:
a) Would be required to obey all government laws on trading of manufactured goods;
b) Would be required to check the medical history of a customer before selling any forms of goods or services to the buyer;
c) Must immediately respond with full compliance to any suggestion, request, order, audit, and any form of legal or executive notice or order from the DRCD.
7) Any breach of any of the above conditions by any person, business, enterprise, or governmental official are punishable by imprisonment for durations ranging between 24 months and 20 years, and subject to fines as the DRCD deems appropriate.

The benefits are obvious:

- Black Market would collapse in the face of free market competition.
- The Black Market would be replaced by the free market which is subject to taxation; providing national income, creating jobs, and generating wealth.
- It would mean that the amount of drugs people could take on a regular basis could actually be regulated by the government.
- The law could distinguish between people who use very little, and a lot of drugs.
- It would prevent people who have serious medical conditions from abusing the drugs to disastrous results.

[QUOTE=MrBobby;13575679]Once again, legalisation removes most of these problems, even if they are true.
Btw, would you like to tell us, what IS your job? that puts you on the 'front lines'?[quote]


This poster claims hes a cop. He also says all blacks are criminals and there is some jewish conspirecy in control of the media keeping everyone else down.

Ah, right. Sort of like, a troll with some brains? So instead of just posting stupid troll comments, he actually trys to make them into a reasonable debate?

It always sucks when the bad guys aren't stupid :(

I go back and forth on this. On one hand, it is a drug, and there are awful side-effects. The BBC had an article about a woman who took a strong dose of it for a month for a psychiatric experiment, and hated it.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how much say the government should have in what you do to your own body. There could be adverse social consequences, such as when people try to drive while high. But these problems already exist with alcohol, and no one's banned that since the Volstead Act.

So in short, I don't know. I would never smoke it myself, I do know that.

Ah, right. Sort of like, a troll with some brains? So instead of just posting stupid troll comments, he actually trys to make them into a reasonable debate?

It always sucks when the bad guys aren't stupid :(

Uh, what?

Why does he have brains?

It would be very interesting to be able to add another quote-
Will all, and only, people who voted in vote #1 answer this question
Do you smoke marijuana regularly?
Yes
No


No. If it were legal and I could afford it I might use occasionally, probably less often than I drink. I would also ingest it (as brownies perhaps) rather than smoking. Better for the lungs.

Uh, what?

Why does he have brains?

heh.
Because he goes beyond just posting the most provocative thing he can think of. He a) does a brilliant job of pretending to be an idiot, but HIDING the fact that he is merely a troll... and b) becomes a succesful troll by actually making a debate out of his comments, thus getting the reaction trolls crave- whereas a less subtle troll would merely be ignored.

;p

heh.
Because he goes beyond just posting the most provocative thing he can think of. He a) does a brilliant job of pretending to be an idiot, but HIDING the fact that he is merely a troll... and b) becomes a succesful troll by actually making a debate out of his comments, thus getting the reaction trolls crave- whereas a less subtle troll would merely be ignored.

;p

You claimed he had brains after someone said "This poster claims hes a cop. He also says all blacks are criminals and there is some jewish conspirecy in control of the media keeping everyone else down."

Anyway, all trolls are idiots.

No. If it were legal and I could afford it I might use occasionally, probably less often than I drink. I would also ingest it (as brownies perhaps) rather than smoking. Better for the lungs.

It's cheaper than a night out drinking here, haha.

Brownies get expensive though, because you need to use a lot. I've never tried them because I can't afford that.

I go back and forth on this. On one hand, it is a drug, and there are awful side-effects. The BBC had an article about a woman who took a strong dose of it for a month for a psychiatric experiment, and hated it.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how much say the government should have in what you do to your own body. There could be adverse social consequences, such as when people try to drive while high. But these problems already exist with alcohol, and no one's banned that since the Volstead Act.

So in short, I don't know. I would never smoke it myself, I do know that.

Yes, that BBC show was the one written about in the (very biased) newspaper article i refered to.
Yeh, she had bad experiences- smoking a joint of skunk every day, and trying to lead a normal life, as well, and also after not having smoked since uni (when, btw, she said she had a great time using it and only experienced mild euphoria and giggles n just general good effects).
The 'experiment' just seemed to irrelevant, ie the way she treated the drug is not relevant to how people actually use it. Basically I would have predicted she would have bad experiences. Hell, I've had some bad experiences- only slightly, and they were fun too- but that was when I was younger and had just started smoking. I basically just had too much and kinda tripped out, to the point that I was a bit worried about if I was going to be ok. However, I knew marijuana couldn't kill and generally just sitting down and waiting for it to pass helped loads ;p
And if you start off on very strong skunk, then yeh... it's gonna be nasty. Since those experiences I've learned to pace it, so I get as high as I want to be- if I only want to be a little high, I will only be a little high.

"On one hand, it is a drug, and there are awful side-effects."
what are they?
(I'm not asking to try and start an argument, I'm asking so I can find out if you're fully informed)

It's cheaper than a night out drinking here, haha.

Brownies get expensive though, because you need to use a lot. I've never tried them because I can't afford that.

Good point, you can easily get enough for one person for one night for £10, + baccy + skins
about the price of a night in drinking.
If you go to the pub, you'll spend more.
If you're in clubs, you'll spend waaaay more.

After several years of being 'on the front lines' so to speak, I have had to deal with marijuana users and addicts regularly, and i have seen first hand the long term effects of its use

The users show a clear drop in motivation the longer they use it, in some cases becoming dealers of one level or another so they dont have to work to earn the cash they need

A number of the older ones who have had prolonged useage, and still work, go for jobs that do not require alot of practical effort - such as being a musician in a nightclub, or providing minimal assistance at the local city mission feeding the homeless so they can tell their manager at the welfare office that they are "working for a charity' and thus claim welfare without having to officially look for work.

Most potheads prefer the status quo, and become agitated when any outside force makes any attempt to interfere with this, including but not limited to: those who try to drive them towards jobs/ real jobs,...management powers that try to enforce the rules of tenancy such as noise regulations / disorderly behavious / etc,....and some generally abuse any individual in a law enforcement uniform because they represent a potential threat to the way they want to live

What you see is a correlation, and you can't determine causality based on a correlation. Perhaps people who are unmotivated and have negative attitudes towards authority are more likely to use and abuse drugs. I know more people who smoke marijuana who are productive, upstanding members of society than are lazy and unmotivated. A good friend of mine smokes multiple times daily and is working 30 hour weeks in a management position and attending a university full time receiving good grades. His ability to contribute to society is clearly not harmed, so why should he not be allowed to use marijuana?

Perhaps on the 'front lines' you tend to encounter the worst of the worst. You probably usually encounter people who have also been abusing other drugs and alchohol, and people who have the time to sit around and get stoned or sell weed all the time.

The people on the periphery of the marijuana market tend to be pretty normal, and they constitute the vast majority of userse.

Keep it illegal, but not criminal or not heavily. Focus on rehab.

I take great offense at the idea being a musician is a useless job. A working musician has more focus and dedication to get to a professional working level than almost anything. How many years of study and practice will any musician go through to master a chosen instrument. Pure Bollocks to that insinuation.

I have been a pot smoker for years. Didn't start till I was 21, so like alcohol. There must be controls. The developing mind needs to be protected. When you become an adult, your choices are your own.

Pot smokers are not violent as a rule, unlike drunks. Just go to any bar and stay till closing. As a musician and an engineer, I've witnessed many punch-ups involving too much booze.

Notice that little fact. I'm an engineer. No lack of brain power there. I am self employed and work as a hired hand. So lazy does not apply. I have run crews of 200+ people. I call that real work.

I also taught myself HTML PHP etc. Much of it while enjoying a bit of green. It helps some people focus on a task. Again slurs about lazy and not having real jobs Bollocks!

Anything can be abused. So if it's legal, a fraction of the money spent on enforcement can be used to treat those with addiction problems. Much better use of public money if you ask me.

Legalize it. Look at Holland. with the loose drug laws, there is less addiction per capita than the U.S. In fact there is less use per capita generaly. The War on drugs is more a war on the poor. It's a failure and unjust.

Off my soapbox now. Great thread!

Good point, you can easily get enough for one person for one night for £10, + baccy + skins
about the price of a night in drinking.
If you go to the pub, you'll spend more.
If you're in clubs, you'll spend waaaay more.

I don't live in the UK, I live in Australia.
It's about $25 for a couple of days worth.
I don't spin mine with tobacco usually, so that's not a cost factor for me.

Keep it illegal, but not criminal or not heavily. Focus on rehab.

I think that would at least be better than the way it is now in some countries. I definitely think there shouldn't be jail time for those who are in possesion of pot for personal use.

I take great offense at the idea being a musician is a useless job. A working musician has more focus and dedication to get to a professional working level than almost anything. How many years of study and practice will any musician go through to master a chosen instrument. Pure Bollocks to that insinuation.

I have been a pot smoker for years. Didn't start till I was 21, so like alcohol. There must be controls. The developing mind needs to be protected. When you become an adult, your choices are your own.

Pot smokers are not violent as a rule, unlike drunks. Just go to any bar and stay till closing. As a musician and an engineer, I've witnessed many punch-ups involving too much booze.

Notice that little fact. I'm an engineer. No lack of brain power there. I am self employed and work as a hired hand. So lazy does not apply. I have run crews of 200+ people. I call that real work.

I also taught myself HTML PHP etc. Much of it while enjoying a bit of green. It helps some people focus on a task. Again slurs about lazy and not having real jobs Bollocks!

Anything can be abused. So if it's legal, a fraction of the money spent on enforcement can be used to treat those with addiction problems. Much better use of public money if you ask me.

Legalize it. Look at Holland. with the loose drug laws, there is less addiction per capita than the U.S. In fact there is less use per capita generaly. The War on drugs is more a war on the poor. It's a failure and unjust.

Off my soapbox now. Great thread!


hehe thanks :)

right, now lets just indicate this thread to Mr Bush and Mr Brown, and ask them whether they'd prefer to vocalise their support for Kirchensittenbach, or for ... well... anyone else.
I wish I could actually put that question to them.
And I wish politicians didn't automatically dodge any question asked of them ;p

Good point, you can easily get enough for one person for one night for £10, + baccy + skins
about the price of a night in drinking.
If you go to the pub, you'll spend more.
If you're in clubs, you'll spend waaaay more.

On the other hand if you do it at home or at a friends house or while camping . . . a six pack of decent beer = under $10 US. You can get a decent bottle of wine for under $15 US, If you want hard stuff it costs more but you enough to share or enough for several nights. I've also currently got a batch of mead brewing that cost me 10 gallons of honey and a few bucks for chemicals and yeast. That'll be ten gallons when it's done.

Is there anyone who actually disagrees?
Why?


Yes. Me.

You can compare it all you want to Tobacco. But I believe Tobacco should be illegal too so that has nothing to do with it. As for Alchohol in large amounts - same thing.

As for reasons, this is the way I see it.

As much as you'd raise disagreements, scientific research has clearly shown
1- Marijuana usage causes significant harm to your body.
2- You will later need treatment for diseases potentially increased in severity/likelihood of occurance by your 'recreation'.
3- This will cost more money.
4- That comes from tax payers' pockets.

That's it.
It should be illegal. As well as any other unnecessary recreation that causes significant harm to your body.

On the other hand if you do it at home or at a friends house or while camping . . . a six pack of decent beer = under $10 US. You can get a decent bottle of wine for under $15 US, If you want hard stuff it costs more but you enough to share or enough for several nights. I've also currently got a batch of mead brewing that cost me 10 gallons of honey and a few bucks for chemicals and yeast. That'll be ten gallons when it's done.

*insert joke about getting decent beer in US*
I've no idea how much mary jane costs in the US anyways so :p

I know that the health hazards associated with marijuana, but after discussion with users and nonusers form the US and countries where it is legal, I have concluded that users generally seem to be those social loafers. Not exactly the kind of people I want myself associated with, or my country endorsing.
It seems like a stupid drug for stupid people. For the record, I use neither marijuana or any othe drug - legal or illegal, so hypocrite-calling is void.

Yes. Me.

You can compare it all you want to Tobacco. But I believe Tobacco should be illegal too so that has nothing to do with it. As for Alchohol in large amounts - same thing.

As for reasons, this is the way I see it.

As much as you'd raise disagreements, scientific research has clearly shown
1- Marijuana usage causes significant harm to your body.
2- You will later need treatment for diseases potentially increased in severity/likelihood of occurance by your 'recreation'.
3- This will cost more money.
4- That comes from tax payers' pockets.

That's it.
It should be illegal. As well as any other unnecessary recreation that causes significant harm to your body.

Using marijuana (just like smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol) won't definitely cause health problems for every user.

So, what you mean to say is that any unnecessary recreation that can cause significant harm to your body should be illegal. That means we should make driving cars illegal (it's not necessary - you can walk, ride or catch public transport); we should make sky diving illegal (obiviously not necessary and you can die); we should make surfing illegal (again, it's not necessary and you could drown/break a leg etc); we should make eating donuts illegal (not necessary, could make you fat and get diabetes) and so on!

I can understand certain things being banned to protect the health of a country's people, but I certainly don't agree with it being banned for financial reasons. Not all countries even pay for their people's health care, plus if the government was really concerned about the financial burden of legalisation, they could put a tax on marijuana.

I know that the health hazards associated with marijuana, but after discussion with users and nonusers form the US and countries where it is legal, I have concluded that users generally seem to be those social loafers. Not exactly the kind of people I want myself associated with, or my country endorsing.
IT seems like a stupid drug for stupid people. For the record, I use neither marijuana or any othe drug - legal or illegal, so hypocrite-calling is void.

Your conclusion is a misconception.

Yes. Me.

You can compare it all you want to Tobacco. But I believe Tobacco should be illegal too so that has nothing to do with it. As for Alchohol in large amounts - same thing.

As for reasons, this is the way I see it.

As much as you'd raise disagreements, scientific research has clearly shown
1- Marijuana usage causes significant harm to your body.
2- You will later need treatment for diseases potentially increased in severity/likelihood of occurance by your 'recreation'.
3- This will cost more money.
4- That comes from tax payers' pockets.

That's it.
It should be illegal. As well as any other unnecessary recreation that causes significant harm to your body.

Are you saying that being healthy is more important than having fun?
Are you, then, also against high risk sports such as skydiving or mountain climbing? Increased risk of death exchanged for ... well, we can simplify the reasons to 'having fun'.
Are you also saying that you believe it is important to be healthy, and you also believe strongly enough that you are right, that you would force people to comply? i.e. your opinion is more 'right' than other peoples? (most people have the view that people have the right to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt out people- this is because although one person may think someone should do this, that person might think they should be doing that, and neither can prove their opinion more valid than the other person's- can you?)
Are you saying that tax shouldn't be used to help people who suffer by their own fault? what about rehab for drug users? it's their fault, so we should just let them die rather than spend tax money helping them?
Oh yeh... Fighting against marijuana costs far more than any other expense incurred by its consumption, or any potential costs regarding it's legalisation.


I'm fine with you thinking that people should not smoke, do weed, or drink more than a couple glasses of booze. However, that you think this should be law- I.e. you think your opinions should be applied to everyone- this I object to.
Are you religious? I disagree with religion. I think it is a 'bad' thing. I have plenty of arguments to support this view. However, I would never, even if I could, Force people to give up their religion. It's personal choice.

Yes, the very harmful drugs are illegal, as should be. Their effects are rather more devesating however. They also tend to effect other people, through the actions of someone either high on these drugs, or through the actions of addicts.
erm yeh basically your view seems incompatible with the democratic way we like to live, assuming for some reason that you're from the developed western world. Or most of it, anyway. Just because we think something would be good, doesn't mean we can force it on people who disagree. We can only force it on people who disagree if most people think it's really a very good idea/ bad thing.

I know that the health hazards associated with marijuana, but after discussion with users and nonusers form the US and countries where it is legal, I have concluded that users generally seem to be those social loafers. Not exactly the kind of people I want myself associated with, or my country endorsing.
It seems like a stupid drug for stupid people. For the record, I use neither marijuana or any othe drug - legal or illegal, so hypocrite-calling is void.

To me, eastenders (insert any soap) seems like a stupid TV show for stupid people- So the BBC shouldn't produce 'stupid' shows, because I wouldn't want myself associated with these people?
People are allowed to be stupid
Anyways, I'm very doubtful of the accuracy of your statement.

"On one hand, it is a drug, and there are awful side-effects."
what are they?
(I'm not asking to try and start an argument, I'm asking so I can find out if you're fully informed)
Well, you get high...
I realize this isn't really a side effect. But if you were driving, or operating machinery, you would be a danger to yourself and others.
Then there's the BBC study. I realize it was an extreme case, but it's still a side effect.
That in of itself doesn't necessarily mean it should be banned, though. All legal drugs have side effects. However, they will have to be considered if it is ever made legal.

Well, you get high...
I realize this isn't really a side effect. But if you were driving, or operating machinery, you would be a danger to yourself and others.
Then there's the BBC study. I realize it was an extreme case, but it's still a side effect.
That in of itself doesn't necessarily mean it should be banned, though. All legal drugs have side effects. However, they will have to be considered if it is ever made legal.

ah ok ;p
so not exactly 'awful' side effects
I assume you're aware that you'd be a hell of a lot less dangerous behind the wheel than if you were drunk.

And yep, there's that bbc thingey... though under legalisation skunk wouldn't be available :/ I should probably go find that 'bbc thingey' on youtube or something.

Unfortunately, I doubt the government would ever make as radical a move as to legalise it. Why? It might possibly prove unpopular, especially in the short run. All they care about is votes, of course.
Votes>intelligence (i.e. doing the best thing). If you're a government.

I've got an idea. How about we legalise it, but as soon as you use it, we cut off your health insurance and all other government-related health services? That way, the taxpayer doesn't have to pay out the ass to cure the illness that you'll inevitably get.

That way, the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay out the ass to cure the illness that you’ll inevitably get.
What illness would that be?

I've got an idea. How about we legalise it, but as soon as you use it, we cut off your health insurance and all other government-related health services? That way, the taxpayer doesn't have to pay out the ass to cure the illness that you'll inevitably get.

What nonsense. You already pay out the ass to keep minor drug offenders living it up in prison. Guaranteed. On the other hand, the risk of disease is not "inevitable" from marijuana use, and the price on taxpayers for treating possible disease is far less than the burden of paying for the certainty of needless prison sentences.

By any rational estimation your proposal here is stupid.

ah ok ;p
so not exactly 'awful' side effects
I assume you're aware that you'd be a hell of a lot less dangerous behind the wheel than if you were drunk.

And yep, there's that bbc thingey... though under legalisation skunk wouldn't be available :/ I should probably go find that 'bbc thingey' on youtube or something.


So I have one question: What's all this jack about making "skunk" weed unavailable? As far as I understand the term, it is just the name of a strain of marijuana, though it has become synonymous with "good weed".

I mean, if one is trying to use marijuana recreationally, whats the big deal with smoking weed that actually tastes good? As far as I understand it, using lower-quality herb would only result in people smoking more (and thus causing more damage to their lungs) to achieve the same effect.

Hell, even in medical cases where potent marijuana is not strictly necessary, it always seems to be much more well-received (and you never see anyone walking out of a club with schwag) and (I've heard, anecdotally) efficacious.

What illness would that be?

Same as tobacco. Also, mental illness, like depression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

well seeing the 7:1 ratio in favour of marijuana, that gives the clear sign NS is infested with potheads as i first suggested

I just wish it caused sterility, then i wouldnt be worrying about the future because if potheads cant reproduce, all we have to do is eliminate the drug and let the former users grow old and die, without causing the potential of inherited addictions

I went through rehab for marijuana use. There is no such thing as an "inherited addiction" in regards to marijuana, and any REAL police officer would tell you as much.

All your anecdotes are lies...back to your cave, troll.

Same as tobacco. Also, mental illness, like depression.
These are certainly not inevitable, as you claimed.

Moreover, AFAIK, no study on cannabis usage has ever found hard evidence that smoking pot will induce mental illness unless that person is already suffering from, or is highly susceptible to, mental problems.

Same as tobacco. Also, mental illness, like depression.

Yeah so you want no government services for anyone who does anything that carries a risk of contracting any disease, or which might make them feel sad.

So basically you want no government services or health care for anyone.

Mmmm, soma:)

Yeah so you want no government services for anyone who does anything that carries a risk of contracting any disease, or which might make them feel sad.

So basically you want no government services or health care for anyone.

If you're stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?

If you're stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?

So driving a car, or indeed walking down the street of just about any major city, is right out?

If you're stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?

"DEFINITELY," "inevitably," seems like you're still hinging your argument on the flawed premise that smoking marijuana is a 100% guarantee of crippling, expensive diseases. It's not, kid. Not even close.

Well, you get high...
I realize this isn't really a side effect. But if you were driving, or operating machinery, you would be a danger to yourself and others.

That's why it's just as illegal to drive high as it is to drive drunk. :eek: Shocking, ain't it.

If you're stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?

Tell me, if you would, how exactly does eating special brownies harm your lungs?

We have enough problems with legal drugs.

We have enough problems with legal drugs.

my OP was asking for any problems presented by legalising marijuana.
Would you care to elaborate on what these problems you assume we know about, actually are?

So I have one question: What's all this jack about making "skunk" weed unavailable? As far as I understand the term, it is just the name of a strain of marijuana, though it has become synonymous with "good weed".

I mean, if one is trying to use marijuana recreationally, whats the big deal with smoking weed that actually tastes good? As far as I understand it, using lower-quality herb would only result in people smoking more (and thus causing more damage to their lungs) to achieve the same effect.

Hell, even in medical cases where potent marijuana is not strictly necessary, it always seems to be much more well-received (and you never see anyone walking out of a club with schwag) and (I've heard, anecdotally) efficacious.

Skunk is a much more concentrated form of marijuana, grown using not-very-good for you techniques. Kinda like battery farmed weed. All the scientifically proven links between weed and mental health problems, as far as I know, have been shown only for skunk.
Ie, it's quite likely to harm you. Unlike non-skunky weed, which is very unlikely to harm you.
It's got nothing to do with the taste- in fact skunk is likely to taste (much) worse.
It's not that other herb is lower quality, just lower concentrations and growing methods. and you can get some pretty strong stuff which isn't skunk ;p
It's partially the growing methods, too- the way skunk is grown is far from natural, and the methods used result in a drug that causes more harm than 'naturally' grown weed.
I'm aware I'm not being very technical here, but I'm very sure that my points are correct, although possibly not on all details (reasons) they are on the effects ;p sorry that I'm not more educated on this.
"(and you never see anyone walking out of a club with schwag) and (I've heard, anecdotally) efficacious" I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here :/ I don't know what 'schwag' means for a start :p

Does that clarify why skunk would still be illegal?

Why do people care about it so much...

If you're stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?

Goddam... not this argument again.
Just because the harm someone recieves is thier own fault, does not mean we shouldn't treat them.
We treat smokers with lung cancer. It would be inhumane not to.
We treat people who were doing something stupid, i dunno, using a chainsaw in a stupid way.
Most harm that befalls people is their own fault- I imagine more than half of cases, the harm is their own fault- although yes, this is just a guesstimate.
It is just ridiculous to say that because something is someone's own fault, we should leave them bleeding on the pavement because they weren't wearing their helmet, or twitching in their livingroom from a heart attack, because they're fat, or coughing blood over their dining table, because we see a packet of ciggarettes beside them. It's against the moral code of the vast majority of humanity. And if you honestly think that we shouldn't treat people 'because they're stupid enough to do xxx harmful activity' then, you can sit there beside them as they die, hold their hand in their last moments, look into their eyes as they pass away, and then comfort their grieving family for a month afterwards. At any point, you can change your mind and decide they should be given treatment...)

Needless to say, the trauma of this (and knowing you caused their death) would rip you apart in a thousand ways.

I think our POV on the matter is clear ? :/

Why do people care about it so much...

erm.
The same way people would care if the Government tried to make alcohol illegal.

It's a very widely used recreational activity, which people feel they should be able to use freely as a matter of human rights. They also feel that the harms done by it's uncontrolled growth, use and distribution, the money spent on finding, prosecuting, and punishing users, and the harm- and, partic in America, deaths- suffered by innocents... are serious problems. They feel that legalisation is the answer.

I know not all of those are felt by everyone who supports legalisation. Furthermore, it is far from a complete list of reasons ;p however, I hope it serves to illustrate the point.

Goddam... not this argument again.
Just because the harm someone recieves is thier own fault, does not mean we shouldn't treat them.
We treat smokers with lung cancer. It would be inhumane not to.
We treat people who were doing something stupid, i dunno, using a chainsaw in a stupid way.
Most harm that befalls people is their own fault- I imagine more than half of cases, the harm is their own fault- although yes, this is just a guesstimate.
It is just ridiculous to say that because something is someone's own fault, we should leave them bleeding on the pavement because they weren't wearing their helmet, or twitching in their livingroom from a heart attack, because they're fat, or coughing blood over their dining table, because we see a packet of ciggarettes beside them. It's against the moral code of the vast majority of humanity. And if you honestly think that we shouldn't treat people 'because they're stupid enough to do xxx harmful activity' then, you can sit there beside them as they die, hold their hand in their last moments, look into their eyes as they pass away, and then comfort their grieving family for a month afterwards. At any point, you can change your mind and decide they should be given treatment...)

Needless to say, the trauma of this (and knowing you caused their death) would rip you apart in a thousand ways.

I think our POV on the matter is clear ? :/

Heh I hope that you are enjoying your first question, and that the nervousness has gone.

I agree let us use whatever substance we want to use, but be aware of all of the effects of your choice.

Goddam... not this argument again.
Just because the harm someone recieves is thier own fault, does not mean we shouldn't treat them.
We treat smokers with lung cancer. It would be inhumane not to.
We treat people who were doing something stupid, i dunno, using a chainsaw in a stupid way.
Most harm that befalls people is their own fault- I imagine more than half of cases, the harm is their own fault- although yes, this is just a guesstimate.
It is just ridiculous to say that because something is someone's own fault, we should leave them bleeding on the pavement because they weren't wearing their helmet, or twitching in their livingroom from a heart attack, because they're fat, or coughing blood over their dining table, because we see a packet of ciggarettes beside them. It's against the moral code of the vast majority of humanity. And if you honestly think that we shouldn't treat people 'because they're stupid enough to do xxx harmful activity' then, you can sit there beside them as they die, hold their hand in their last moments, look into their eyes as they pass away, and then comfort their grieving family for a month afterwards. At any point, you can change your mind and decide they should be given treatment...)

Needless to say, the trauma of this (and knowing you caused their death) would rip you apart in a thousand ways.

I think our POV on the matter is clear ? :/
If we're talking about the UK, it'll be, in all probability, taxed in the same way as tobacco, which goes a way towards financing the NHS.

If we're talking about the UK, it'll be, in all probability, taxed in the same way as tobacco, which goes a way towards financing the NHS.

oh yeh, and i forgot that ;p thanks

I can't answer the poll since it's already legal here :(

I can't answer the poll since it's already legal here :(

lol
i'll make a new poll. just for you.
On the other hand, your opinion on the matter would be highly valued.

Tbh you could just read the poll as

Keep it legalised
Make it illegal
Make it highly illegal
No opinion.

Heh I hope that you are enjoying your first question, and that the nervousness has gone.

I agree let us use whatever substance we want to use, but be aware of all of the effects of your choice.

Oh yes, education and responsible use is, needless to say, important.
Unfortunately at the moment all they do is try and convince you it's a terrible thing and you should stop doing it.
Constantly using arguments that I think 'but that wouldn't be relevant if it were legal :(

anyways, yes thank you, it's been a very exciting time for myself. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank my family and friends for the invaluable support- I couldn't have done it without you guys! also my editing team, and my fantastic agent *blows kiss*


Think I dealt with the nerves ok..

Oh yes, education and responsible use is, needless to say, important.
Unfortunately at the moment all they do is try and convince you it's a terrible thing and you should stop doing it.
Constantly using arguments that I think 'but that wouldn't be relevant if it were legal :(

anyways, yes thank you, it's been a very exciting time for myself. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank my family and friends for the invaluable support- I couldn't have done it without you guys! also my editing team, and my fantastic agent *blows kiss*


Think I dealt with the nerves ok..

Well legal or not, the same problems would be existant.

Well legal or not, the same problems would be existant.

no. they wouldn't.
I said all this in my OP.
Mental health problems = skunk varieties of weed only- these would be illegal still, and there would be no dealers to supply them.
leading to hard drugs- not gonna happen if you're not buying from a dealer.
those are 2 main points. read my original post if this isn't enough to convince you.

Or I guess an easier way would just be to ask you to post an issue that ISN'T solved by legalisation. :/

no. they wouldn't.
I said all this in my OP.
Mental health problems = skunk varieties of weed only- these would be illegal still, and there would be no dealers to supply them.
leading to hard drugs- not gonna happen if you're not buying from a dealer.
those are 2 main points. read my original post if this isn't enough to convince you.

Or I guess an easier way would just be to ask you to post an issue that ISN'T solved by legalisation. :/

Heh mental health issues are not just strng skunk, it depends on how suscepible you are, what age you start.

Again with the 'hard' drugs, depends on what sort of person you are, some people will certianly move onto other drugs from using MJ.

Again some people find it mentaly adictive, some people get agitated or argumentative when their supply runs out.

All substances have their bad points, all of them, to say otherwise is pretty blinkered thinking.

Heh mental health issues are not just strng skunk, it depends on how suscepible you are, what age you start.

Again with the 'hard' drugs, depends on what sort of person you are, some people will certianly move onto other drugs from using MJ.

Again some people find it mentaly adictive, some people get agitated or argumentative when their supply runs out.

All substances have their bad points, all of them, to say otherwise is pretty blinkered thinking.

I'm sorry, but we've already had these discussions if you read back...

Marijuana is NOT chemically addictive. At all. So... no.

We're talking about whether legalisation would make the situation worse or better.

People are less likely to move onto other drugs if they don't come into contact with dealers.

Show me the scientific study that displays this link between marijuana and mental health problems, as opposed to Just skunk. Coz I've never seen it, and no one else here has mentioned it.

I'm not saying marijuana does no harm. I'm saying that, if legal, it would do very little harm- certainly not enough to justifiy it's illegality.
Legalisation would most likely result in either no change, or a decrease, in the number of people who take/have tried marijuana.

btw I'm pretty tired so if i'm doing some poor debating it's coz i havn't slept in a couple days :/

The arguements against legalization I have seen so far...

1. It is harmful. Which has largely been debunked by Amor and Chumbly. So I wont touch that.
2. The moralist pro-nanny state arguement.


This is what I dont get...

WARNING! INCOMING GENERALIZATION

Why is it that conservatives bitch all the time about government regulation of business with the "its their property" arguement, and complain so much about the government interfering with their personal property and taking their money and regulating how they get and use their guns, but see no problem with regulating what people do with their own bodies? I dont get the logical disconnect there.

If you really favor the government not interfering with your property, etc then you should favor the governmen not interfering with what you do with your body. Oh wait, thats right, conservatives want to outlaw biblical sin. :rolleyes:

Oh, and to the poster who said we aught to also ban tobacco and alchohol, youll take my booze and cigarettes over my cold, dead body.

Goddam... not this argument again.
Just because the harm someone recieves is thier own fault, does not mean we shouldn't treat them.
We treat smokers with lung cancer. It would be inhumane not to.
We treat people who were doing something stupid, i dunno, using a chainsaw in a stupid way.
Most harm that befalls people is their own fault- I imagine more than half of cases, the harm is their own fault- although yes, this is just a guesstimate.
It is just ridiculous to say that because something is someone's own fault, we should leave them bleeding on the pavement because they weren't wearing their helmet, or twitching in their livingroom from a heart attack, because they're fat, or coughing blood over their dining table, because we see a packet of ciggarettes beside them. It's against the moral code of the vast majority of humanity. And if you honestly think that we shouldn't treat people 'because they're stupid enough to do xxx harmful activity' then, you can sit there beside them as they die, hold their hand in their last moments, look into their eyes as they pass away, and then comfort their grieving family for a month afterwards. At any point, you can change your mind and decide they should be given treatment...)

Needless to say, the trauma of this (and knowing you caused their death) would rip you apart in a thousand ways.

I think our POV on the matter is clear ? :/

Ok, let's make a deal; we'll treat you for your inevitable illness due to being an idiot who smokes, and to pay for it, your tobacco/marijuana will cost a buttload. Let's say... USD40 a packet?

The arguements against legalization I have seen so far...

1. It is harmful. Which has largely been debunked by Amor and Chumbly. So I wont touch that.
2. The moralist pro-nanny state arguement.


This is what I dont get...

WARNING! INCOMING GENERALIZATION

Why is it that conservatives bitch all the time about government regulation of business with the "its their property" arguement, and complain so much about the government interfering with their personal property and taking their money and regulating how they get and use their guns, but see no problem with regulating what people do with their own bodies? I dont get the logical disconnect there.

If you really favor the government not interfering with your property, etc then you should favor the governmen not interfering with what you do with your body. Oh wait, thats right, conservatives want to outlaw biblical sin. :rolleyes:

Oh, and to the poster who said we aught to also ban tobacco and alchohol, youll take my booze and cigarettes over my cold, dead body.

Any kind of smoking is harmful, even to others, so it should be banned.

Oh, and we might not have to wait for you to die to take your cigarettes, we'll just wait 'til you have a stroke and ease them out of your feeble hands.

Any kind of smoking is harmful, even to others, so it should be banned.

Oh, and we might not have to wait for you to die to take your cigarettes, we'll just wait 'til you have a stroke and ease them out of your feeble hands.

Werent you the one bitching about the end of the age of freedom?


And smoking in pubic places is already banned in IL and many other states, so the whole it hurts others fails.


So, whats the problem then if I can only smoke in or outside my property or 15 feet away from any doors of public buildings?

Werent you the one bitching about the end of the age of freedom?

There is no "Freedom to give everybody else lung cancer".

So, whats the problem then if I can only smoke in or outside my property or 15 feet away from any doors of public buildings?

I hope you don't intend on having children, then.

I'm sorry, but we've already had these discussions if you read back...

Marijuana is NOT chemically addictive. At all. So... no.

We're talking about whether legalisation would make the situation worse or better.

People are less likely to move onto other drugs if they don't come into contact with dealers.

Show me the scientific study that displays this link between marijuana and mental health problems, as opposed to Just skunk. Coz I've never seen it, and no one else here has mentioned it.

I'm not saying marijuana does no harm. I'm saying that, if legal, it would do very little harm- certainly not enough to justifiy it's illegality.
Legalisation would most likely result in either no change, or a decrease, in the number of people who take/have tried marijuana.

btw I'm pretty tired so if i'm doing some poor debating it's coz i havn't slept in a couple days :/

To be honest I wont bother reading back through the tread as I antisipate that the same old arguements have, by now, all been basicly layed down.

However I did say menatly addicted, that some people may become mentaly addicted to MJ is beyond arguement.

Legalising it will not make any differance with this, nor will it magicly cure the mental health issues.

Just because a substance becomes legel that does not take away the wanting to try the illegal ones. So to the contact with dealers, if you want to purchase 'E' you will findyourself somebody thatr sells it.

To be honest I wont bother reading back through the tread as I antisipate that the same old arguements have, by now, all been basicly layed down.

However I did say menatly addicted, that some people may become mentaly addicted to MJ is beyond arguement.

Legalising it will not make any differance with this, nor will it magicly cure the mental health issues.

To be fair though, everything can be psychologically addictive.

Just because a substance becomes legel that does not take away the wanting to try the illegal ones. So to the contact with dealers, if you want to purchase 'E' you will findyourself somebody thatr sells it.


I actually saw a study a few years back that showed that the "Pot is a gateway drug!" arguement was bull. Ill see if I can find it.

To be fair though, everything can be psychologically addictive.

Yeah exaclty so making it legal won't change that at all.


I actually saw a study a few years back that showed that the "Pot is a gateway drug!" arguement was bull. Ill see if I can find it.

Again I think it depends on the person.

Again I think it depends on the person.

Here we go.


The study: http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html

For everyone that says weed is harmless maybe you should learn a couple of facts.
1. One joint produces three times the amount of tar in your lungs compared to one cigarette.
2. The Government can barely do our taxes right, what makes you think they have all this extra time for drugs?

Here we go.


The study: http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html

That in no way shows the Bullness of which you speak, not even the athours of the report suggest that. In fact they say that it should only be used to 'raise questions' and they agree that 'no difinitive answer' is likely to be found.

Take this bit for examlpe:

"The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and harder drugs," Morral said. "Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available. Once we incorporated these facts into our mathematical model of adolescent drug use, we could explain all of the drug use associations that have been cited as evidence of marijuana's gateway effect."


This tells me two things. MJ is in fact not more easily avaliable than either coke or heroin, or speed, or E, or many other 'hard' drugs. It is though as they say more than likely to be the first one people try.

Secondly, I note that this report is based on a mathematical model that incorperates survey data from samples of the youth across America. So they havn't actualy talked to any older drug users, or indeed drug users of all ages.

Survey data, easpecily of drug users, and easpecily of young drug users, would as you can imagine be fraught, with skewed data.

Distribution of illegal drugs is controlled by criminals. Now, I detest drugs (except tobacco & beer, of course, but I'm a hypocrite) but having criminals in charge of distribution of dangerous substances is cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. With a chainsaw.

I've tried dope (lots of times), don't think I liked it but aren't sure because my brain just stopped working, and speed (a couple of times) was *fun* for about 45 minutes, and lousy for the next 3 hours...

My solution? Nationalise distribution of prohibited drugs, and have effective treatment and rehabilitation programmes running alongside the distribution arms.

Results? Immediate removal of criminals from the drug distribution process. Drug sales get taxed. Drugs are uncut and safe, so less people die from overdoses and infection. Crime goes down. And hell, in the long-term, drug use will go down - I mean, who would want to buy drugs with a "Government Approved" sticker?.. Oh, and we sort out what to do with Afghanistan. We just buy all their opium, and sell them Status Quo records and tartan hats.

Distribution of illegal drugs is controlled by criminals. Now, I detest drugs (except tobacco & beer, of course, but I'm a hypocrite) but having criminals in charge of distribution of dangerous substances is cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. With a chainsaw.

I've tried dope (lots of times), don't think I liked it but aren't sure because my brain just stopped working, and speed (a couple of times) was *fun* for about 45 minutes, and lousy for the next 3 hours...

My solution? Nationalise distribution of prohibited drugs, and have effective treatment and rehabilitation programmes running alongside the distribution arms.

Results? Immediate removal of criminals from the drug distribution process. Drug sales get taxed. Drugs are uncut and safe, so less people die from overdoses and infection. Crime goes down. And hell, in the long-term, drug use will go down - I mean, who would want to buy drugs with a "Government Approved" sticker?.. Oh, and we sort out what to do with Afghanistan. We just buy all their opium, and sell them Status Quo records and tartan hats.

Hey I'll have no 'dising' of the Quo!

I agree with you though, it seems highly ridiculouse to me that alchol is legal, whilst other recreational substances are not.

I agree this is a valid argument. As someone who has never smoked but has many friends that smoke, I don't see too much of a point in it being illegal.

It has been proven to cause cancer, but so have cigarettes.
The real difference, the one I've chosen never to pick up a joint for is the loss of brain cells and the general slowdown you have when you smoke.

I think that, if legalized it'd need some reigns put on it. Drunk Drivers are a bad enough problem; and High drivers would have to be given the same treatment.

Generally smoking in public facilities has been outlawed here in NYC, and I think a similar law would be required for pot smokers, too. If I choose to sit around my friends while they smoke in their own home, that's my choice. If I go to a public place and it's loaded with people...It's me that'll have to get out and go to another place... That's up for debate, I guess; I personally wouldn't mind going to another place anyway.

I dunno, in general I see it on the same level as a cigarette, neither is really good for you, but that won't stop people from taking up the habit. So why are cigarettes legal?

I don't know if marijuana's market should be government controlled... the vast majority of American commodities are privatized, but I can see where the idea of it being government controlled comes into benefit, because if privatized we'd have the same unbelievable taxes; Which would cause people to keep the drug dealers in business.

This is a valid argument, and I don't think any one debate would be able to bring out all the pros and cons. It needs intelligent people on both sides; I'm sure you can both agree to that, it's no good to be all against it with no intellectual facts and claiming "common sense", but it's no good to walk around saying "yeaaa man, legalize that shit."

Yeap...I'm done.

For everyone that says weed is harmless maybe you should learn a couple of facts.
1. One joint produces three times the amount of tar in your lungs compared to one cigarette.

Source?

That in no way shows the Bullness of which you speak, not even the athours of the report suggest that. In fact they say that it should only be used to 'raise questions' and they agree that 'no difinitive answer' is likely to be found.



Thats because I posted the wrong link >.<

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5490

"Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin," St. Pierre said. "For the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers, pot is clearly a 'terminus' rather than a gateway."

There is no "Freedom to give everybody else lung cancer".



I hope you don't intend on having children, then.

look, i'm tired, so i apologise for this-

you're an idiot. your views are patently stupid and narrow minded. You are focusing back to an individual example when it has been clearly shown by a widening of relevant examples that your ideas are bad ones.
Your selfishness is hard not to hate, and it is also hard to believe that you would preach or practise in real life, that which you claim to on the internet.


Oh I'm bored of insulting you.... doesn't it seem plain that such moral self righteousness, coupled with total selfishness for something as insignificant, compared to a life, as your tax dollars/pounds, cannot be the product of an educated mind?

Thats because I posted the wrong link >.<

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5490

Heh and thats a link to a differant story about the same report.

Source?


"It has been estimated that smoking a cannabis cigarette (containing only herbal cannabis) results in an approximately five-fold greater increase in carboxyhaemoglobin concentration, a three-fold greater increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and a retention in the respiratory tract of one third more tar than smoking a tobacco cigarette."
(Source: British Medical Association)


http://www.streetdrugs.org/marijuana2.htm

Heh and thats a link to a differant story about the same report.

Yes, but it also has other reports in there too.

For everyone that says weed is harmless maybe you should learn a couple of facts.
1. One joint produces three times the amount of tar in your lungs compared to one cigarette.
2. The Government can barely do our taxes right, what makes you think they have all this extra time for drugs?

1. omg. so smoking 3x as many ciggies as normal should be illegal?
Bong?
Vaporiser?
Hash cakes?
:/
2. What??

I hope you don't intend on having children, then.


If/when I do Ill quit smoking. Problem solved.

"It has been estimated that smoking a cannabis cigarette (containing only herbal cannabis) results in an approximately five-fold greater increase in carboxyhaemoglobin concentration, a three-fold greater increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and a retention in the respiratory tract of one third more tar than smoking a tobacco cigarette."
(Source: British Medical Association)


http://www.streetdrugs.org/marijuana2.htm

bong
hash cakes
vaporiser
etc
etc

I just thought of something...

What would the legal pot smoking age be in America?

Cigs - 18
Alcohol -21

:-o Sorry for double post, it's....just a thought.

okay
seeing how high that drug poll is going shows how ****ing doomed we are

that there are so many potheads and pro-drug advocates out there shows how morally weak alot of people today are

If this generation of people whine to legalize marijuana, its a firm bet that either the next generation, or a time in between now and then, more crybabies come out and whine to have harder drugs legalized, as long as users are 'educated' to use them properly

-------------
But then, reading the posts above that say one joint has 3x the tar of a cigarette, there could be the bonus that if marijuana is legalized, that pot smokers will die 3x faster than the noted count of cigarette smokers that die each year

To be honest I wont bother reading back through the tread as I antisipate that the same old arguements have, by now, all been basicly layed down.

However I did say menatly addicted, that some people may become mentaly addicted to MJ is beyond arguement.

Some people become psychologically addicted to the internet and become cranky if they can't get online. What's your point?

Legalising it will not make any differance with this, nor will it magicly cure the mental health issues.

The reports I've seen re: "mental health issues" are quite iffy on the distinction between pot smokers having mental problems and those with mental problems being more likely to smoke pot.

Just because a substance becomes legel that does not take away the wanting to try the illegal ones. So to the contact with dealers, if you want to purchase 'E' you will find yourself somebody that sells it.

What the hell does this have to do with legal pot?

If you’re stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?
Again with the ‘definitely’. It’s not inevitable that smoking cannabis will irreparably damage your lungs.

More importantly, why should I be prevented from doing something that has a chance of harming me? Should I also be prevented from riding in a car, from going bungee jumping, from eating too much cheese, from ordering a take-away a couple of nights a week? All these activities have the potential to harm me quite seriously; fatally in some cases.

Why aren’t you petitioning to ban the consumption of cheese?

There is no “Freedom to give everybody else lung cancer”.
And there is no chance that me lighting up in the privacy of my own home will give ‘everybody’ lung cancer.

that there are so many potheads and pro-drug advocates out there shows how morally weak alot of people today are
Grow up and post some real arguments.

If this generation of people whine to legalize marijuana, its a firm bet that either the next generation, or a time in between now and then, more crybabies come out and whine to have harder drugs legalized, as long as users are 'educated' to use them properly
Prohibition ain't exactly working, now is it?

I'm one of those 'crybabies' that want full legalisation of drugs. I believe we can overcome much of the problems associated with drug abuse if we have a responsible attitude towards substances. One can quite responsibly imbue a number of substances without your life/society collapsing.

okay
seeing how high that drug poll is going shows how ****ing doomed we are

that there are so many potheads and pro-drug advocates out there shows how morally weak alot of people today are

If this generation of people whine to legalize marijuana, its a firm bet that either the next generation, or a time in between now and then, more crybabies come out and whine to have harder drugs legalized, as long as users are 'educated' to use them properly

You say morally I weak, I say not enforcing relative morals on people who disagree.


Tell us again how all black people are criminals.

If this generation of people whine to legalize marijuana, its a firm bet that either the next generation, or a time in between now and then, more crybabies come out and whine to have harder drugs legalized, as long as users are 'educated' to use them properly


I think that is the only viable option. Legalise all recreational drugs, teach people the dangers of them, and let us be grown up enough to make up our own minds.

That or take the really brave step of outlawing tabbaco and alchol.

That or take the really brave step of outlawing...alchol.

Yeah, and we in the states all know how well that worked...

okay
seeing how high that drug poll is going shows how ****ing doomed we are

that there are so many potheads and pro-drug advocates out there shows how morally weak alot of people today are

If this generation of people whine to legalize marijuana, its a firm bet that either the next generation, or a time in between now and then, more crybabies come out and whine to have harder drugs legalized, as long as users are 'educated' to use them properly

-------------
But then, reading the posts above that say one joint has 3x the tar of a cigarette, there could be the bonus that if marijuana is legalized, that pot smokers will die 3x faster than the noted count of cigarette smokers that die each year

got no proof, so shut your mouth, got no proof so shut your mouth, da da da, da da da da, da da da......
*shrug* what worth, is an unproven statement, going against the accepted/majority view?

Why aren’t you petitioning to ban the consumption of cheese?


You better not ban my consumption of cheese.
TO ARMS!
13th Amendment!
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY

...lol.
...Man, this argument is out there. Morally wrong? Weak-minded? Those are borderline personal attacks coming from some people.

Though I agree with the point he made above- "Why are (marijuana users) stopped from smoking legally when there are a million other things that are perfectly legal."

Honestly, back in my most nerdy, loser-like moments; I almost dropped out of school because I felt more comfortable sitting at home playing games on my computer; That was incredibly harmful to both my physical and mental health, and the only illegal thing about it was not going to school.

It's a long time since then, but I can tell you that I literally started to feel parts of my brain shutdown. I wasn't doing ANYTHING productive or stimulating, muscles started to hurt and all; It would have been thousands of times better to just come home and smoke half a joint or something...

Yea, I brand myself as a weak-minded loser, but I've come a long way since aforementioned time; And no I still haven't smoked and don't completely agree with it, but there are really some strong arguments behind its legalization.

Some people become psychologically addicted to the internet and become cranky if they can't get online. What's your point?

The point being that if you say there are no dangers in smoking pot you are a blinkered fool.


What the hell does this have to do with legal pot?

It was in response the the assertion that legalising it would mean that drug users would not come into contact with dealers of illegal drugs. Of course they would, if you wanted to buy an illegal 'E' then who else are you going to get it from.

For everyone that says weed is harmless maybe you should learn a couple of facts.
1. One joint produces three times the amount of tar in your lungs compared to one cigarette.
2. The Government can barely do our taxes right, what makes you think they have all this extra time for drugs?

I have to agree.

Not to mention that our government is working diligently to stop cigarette smoking due to the health complications of inhaling smoke and second hand smoke. It would be idiotic for it to turn around and condone marijuana smoking. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and we in the states all know how well that worked...

Heh yeah exactly.

I have to agree.
Only the rather naive argue that smoking cannabis is harmless. That’s not the point. Why should I be prevented from partaking in an activity that has a potential to cause me some harm, when there are thousands, if not millions, of legal activities that have the potential to cause harm?

Again I ask: do you wish to prohibit the consumption of cheese?

I have to agree.

Not to mention that our government is working diligently to stop cigarette smoking due to the health complications of inhaling smoke and second hand smoke. It would be idiotic for it to turn around and condone marijuana smoking. :rolleyes:

Dunno if the taxes on cigs are as high everywhere as here in NYC, but they're working to stop it because they make A LOT of money off those taxes selling it, and even more money providing ways to quit knowing that many smokers will spend that money and continue to purchase cigs.

Yes, some citywide programs here to stop smoking have been free, so I very much applaud that; But it's a two sided coin, and if you can make money off both sides, who cares about anyone's health!?

"It has been estimated that smoking a cannabis cigarette (containing only herbal cannabis) results in an approximately five-fold greater increase in carboxyhaemoglobin concentration, a three-fold greater increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and a retention in the respiratory tract of one third more tar than smoking a tobacco cigarette."
(Source: British Medical Association)


http://www.streetdrugs.org/marijuana2.htm

Never trust government sources- they tend to be pretty one sided. Go and find original scientific publications or discussions.
usually, first 3 google results are government misinformation, the rest are noticibly differant scientific papers. I know who I'd prefer to trust.

I think that is the only viable option. Legalise all recreational drugs, teach people the dangers of them, and let us be grown up enough to make up our own minds.

That or take the really brave step of outlawing tabbaco and alchol.

outlawing tobacco and alcohol- wouldn't work. they can't even stop people smoking pot, and as has been said, look what happened last time ;p
legalising all drugs, it may well be a good idea, but british and usa governments would never consider that, at least not this generation nor the next. That's, unfortunately, just the reality we have to live with.
Legalising pot could be worth fighting for. Legalising all drugs would just have too much of a negative political effect.

Only the rather naive argue that smoking cannabis is harmless. That’s not the point. Why should I be prevented from partaking in an activity that has a potential to cause me some harm, when there are thousands, if not millions, of legal activities that have the potential to cause harm?

Again I ask: do you wish to prohibit the consumption of cheese?

I'd prefer to give up weed than cheese.

outlawing tobacco and alcohol- wouldn't work. they can't even stop people smoking pot, and as has been said, look what happened last time ;p
legalising all drugs, it may well be a good idea, but british and usa governments would never consider that, at least not this generation nor the next. That's, unfortunately, just the reality we have to live with.
Legalising pot could be worth fighting for. Legalising all drugs would just have too much of a negative political effect.


You're probably right, heh but some people where made to fight the fight huh! Not I though, well I just can't seem to work up the wherewithall!;)

For everyone that says weed is harmless maybe you should learn a couple of facts.
1. One joint produces three times the amount of tar in your lungs compared to one cigarette.

Information taken from Spider Robinson's "The Crazy years", specifically the essay "Flinging Phlegm at the Flim Flam in Flin Flon".

These were in refutation of the fact that marijuana smoke produces 50% more tar and contains 70% more benzopyrene that the same weight of tobacco.

1: "The average joint contains about one tenth the pot by weight as the average cigarette contains tobacco."

2: Average marijuana smoker? No more than 4-5 tokes on their joint. Average cigarette smoker? 10.

3: "Even the heaviest - and richest! - pot smokers consume no more than ten or twelve joints a day, where as heavy tobacco users smoke forty to sixty cigarettes a day.

4: Tar molecules are not all alike. Large tar molecules are easily dealt with by the lungs self cleaning mechanisms, small ones get trapped in the lungs and don't get flushed out. The tars in tobacco are small, those in weed are apparently large.

Again with the ‘definitely’. It’s not inevitable that smoking cannabis will irreparably damage your lungs.


And he still hasn't answered my question about how EATING it will give me lung cancer.

The point being that if you say there are no dangers in smoking pot you are a blinkered fool.

The risk of psychological addiction comes with ANY pleasurable activity.

It was in response the the assertion that legalising it would mean that drug users would not come into contact with dealers of illegal drugs. Of course they would, if you wanted to buy an illegal 'E' then who else are you going to get it from.

No, the assertion was that users of legal weed would buy it from the store and not some guy on the street corner who would say "Hey man, while you're here you want to try some heroin too?" Or worse, some guy who would lace your weed with heroin so you become addicted to THAT and buy it from him. The assertion had nothing to do with users of other drugs and everything to do with the bullshit "gateway drug" argument.

Only the rather naive argue that smoking cannabis is harmless. That’s not the point. Why should I be prevented from partaking in an activity that has a potential to cause me some harm, when there are thousands, if not millions, of legal activities that have the potential to cause harm?

Again I ask: do you wish to prohibit the consumption of cheese?


Nope. But we must realize that cheese is a legal substance and marijuana is not. The question is not whether it harms us or not, it is whether to legalize it or not. So do we add to the list of things we already know harms us? Why open that door at all?

As I said with a government fast tracking on killing the tobacco industry, it doesn't seem rather idiotic for it to endorse the cannibas industry?

And the oh so not original post about bongs etc, wake up pal they said the same thing about filtered cigarettes. :rolleyes:

Look I like weed as well as the next person. I loved smoking cigarettes, I was a smoker for nearly 30 years. But I know first hand what smoking does...and yeah cancer is real and smokers thinking "oh that will never be me" I know that one too well also. So while I enjoyed the smoking of any number of substances....I am not a complete idiot. I speak from experience about what shoving carcinogens in your body will do.

If our society wants to make marijuana legal so be it. My friends who get it illegally to aid in their cancer treatment will no longer be at risk of jail time. But at the same time get off of tobacco and let's just let everyone smoke what they want.

Btw in Ky it is the number one cash crop, in a state that is highly dependent on agriculture for it's economic growth this could be great for it. But then having the tobacco industry back in full swing could be too. I was a Gaitwood Galbraith supporter for many reasons. One being it pisses me off to no end that my children can buy pot easier than a pack of cigarettes. If I want it more out of their reach the best for me as a parent is to legalize it. ;)

The thing is, those who claim it is harmless are only lying to themselves. As you say lots of things aren't healthy. It's the hypocrisy of wanting our government to kill tobacco and give legal life to cannibas that is idiotic.

Information taken from Spider Robinson's "The Crazy years", specifically the essay "Flinging Phlegm at the Flim Flam in Flin Flon".

These were in refutation of the fact that marijuana smoke produces 50% more tar and contains 70% more benzopyrene that the same weight of tobacco.

1: "The average joint contains about one tenth the pot by weight as the average cigarette contains tobacco."

2: Average marijuana smoker? No more than 4-5 tokes on their joint. Average cigarette smoker? 10.

3: "Even the heaviest - and richest! - pot smokers consume no more than ten or twelve joints a day, where as heavy tobacco users smoke forty to sixty cigarettes a day.

4: Tar molecules are not all alike. Large tar molecules are easily dealt with by the lungs self cleaning mechanisms, small ones get trapped in the lungs and don't get flushed out. The tars in tobacco are small, those in weed are apparently large.

hey.... good point.
see what I mean about the Governments one sided representation>?


I just remembered the example I was trying to think of earlier. I was researching marijuana + asthma, to see if claims someone was making were true, as I had a friend who wanted to try weed but was worried about their asthma.
The first couple of results off google were government websites. These unanimously debunked the myth that smoking weed was better for asthma sufferers than smoking ciggies, and warned about death and all that scaremongering. Then i got to the scientific articles (not articles by stoners or even users, i might add) who said that marijuana was great for asthma, and it was just the particles of smoke that were bad. Thus, weed smoked using a vaporiser could greatly alleviate the symptoms of asthma.
It was very interesting, the differance between the government website, which was aimed at childen and which we're supposed to implicitly trust, and what seemed to me more reliable sources giving something far closer to the truth.

No, the assertion was that users of legal weed would buy it from the store and not some guy on the street corner who would say "Hey man, while you're here you want to try some heroin too?" Or worse, some guy who would lace your weed with heroin so you become addicted to THAT and buy it from him. The assertion had nothing to do with users of other drugs and everything to do with the bullshit "gateway drug" argument.


Yet that is not what he said.

Nope. But we must realize that cheese is a legal substance and marijuana is not. The question is not whether it harms us or not, it is whether to legalize it or not. So do we add to the list of things we already know harms us? Why open that door at all?

As I said with a government fast tracking on killing the tobacco industry, it doesn't seem rather idiotic for it to endorse the cannibas industry?

And the oh so not original post about bongs etc, wake up pal they said the same thing about filtered cigarettes. :rolleyes:

Look I like weed as well as the next person. I loved smoking cigarettes, I was a smoker for nearly 30 years. But I know first hand what smoking does...and yeah cancer is real and smokers thinking "oh that will never be me" I know that one too well also. So while I enjoyed the smoking of any number of substances....I am not a complete idiot. I speak from experience about what shoving carcinogens in your body will do.

If our society wants to make marijuana legal so be it. My friends who get it illegally to aid in their cancer treatment will no longer be at risk of jail time. But at the same time get off of tobacco and let's just let everyone smoke what they want.

Btw in Ky it is the number one cash crop, in a state that is highly dependent on agriculture for it's economic growth this could be great for it. But then having the tobacco industry back in full swing could be too. I was a Gaitwood Galbraith supporter for many reasons. One being it pisses me off to no end that my children can buy pot easier than a pack of cigarettes. If I want it more out of their reach the best for me as a parent is to legalize it. ;)

The thing is, those who claim it is harmless are only lying to themselves. As you say lots of things aren't healthy. It's the hypocrisy of wanting our government to kill tobacco and give legal life to cannibas that is idiotic.

yeh, BUT....
well, first, I know bongs dont make it harmless. they help though.
eating it, or using a vaporiser, = no smoke, though...
And... the government WILL NOT get rid of the tobacco industry. How much tax would they lose? I bet the real figure would be truly shocking. Considering ciggies cost as little as 2 Euros in france. so that's as much as £3 on a single box of 20. Think how many boxes of 20 are sold over the country ( i work behind a counter- trust me, a lot).
Now think how much money that is per day.
An incredible amount.
Yes, I know what a stupidly rough estimate that is, but you get the idea. Ciggarettes are here to stay.
I'm a smoker, I know it kills. I fully intend to quit before I've been doing it more than a few years.

Erm... i was gonna say some more.
Tired :(

The risk of psychological addiction comes with ANY pleasurable activity.



No, the assertion was that users of legal weed would buy it from the store and not some guy on the street corner who would say "Hey man, while you're here you want to try some heroin too?" Or worse, some guy who would lace your weed with heroin so you become addicted to THAT and buy it from him. The assertion had nothing to do with users of other drugs and everything to do with the bullshit "gateway drug" argument.

And that if it were legal it would put it in a completely differant social perspective, where there were norms and shit, where you weren't hanging out with a bunch of 'druggies' where the environment you're living in, the people you're associating with, where you get weed from, and social stigma all lead you towards other drugs...

yeh, BUT....
well, first, I know bongs dont make it harmless. they help though.
eating it, or using a vaporiser, = no smoke, though...
And... the government WILL NOT get rid of the tobacco industry. How much tax would they lose? I bet the real figure would be truly shocking. Considering ciggies cost as little as 2 Euros in france. so that's as much as £3 on a single box of 20. Think how many boxes of 20 are sold over the country ( i work behind a counter- trust me, a lot).
Now think how much money that is per day.
An incredible amount.
Yes, I know what a stupidly rough estimate that is, but you get the idea. Ciggarettes are here to stay.
I'm a smoker, I know it kills. I fully intend to quit before I've been doing it more than a few years.

Erm... i was gonna say some more.
Tired :(

Don't kid yourself. In our country we are paying farmers and land owners NOT to grow it. In fact the quota buyout is one of the biggest government agriculture programs to date in our history. We are buying farmers and land owners rights so that it can never be grown again on said lands. (It was grown on a poundage base ag programs for decades.) Taxpayers are paying millions and millions of dollars to stop it's growth, whether they are aware of it or not. The tax revenue from cigarettes has declined to negligible in terms of it meaning any revenue as it is all being funneled into income compensation for those tobacco farmers and workers it has displaced.


I meant to quit too. :rolleyes:

Don't kid yourself. In our country we are paying farmers and land owners NOT to grow it. In fact the quota buyout is one of the biggest government agriculture programs to date in our history. We are buying farmers and land owners rights so that it can never be grown again on said lands. (It was grown on a poundage base ag programs for decades.) Taxpayers are paying millions and millions of dollars to stop it's growth, whether they are aware of it or not. The tax revenue from cigarettes has declined to negligible in terms of it meaning any revenue as it is all being funneled into income compensation for those tobacco farmers and workers it has displaced.


I meant to quit too. :rolleyes:
UK here ;p

And, hopefully I will have the willpower. I know I can stop for a couple days, I know I can go without, I know i can cut down to 1/day for a week or so.
On the other hand, I tell anyone who i think might start smoking, not to. Coz when you do, you find out how goddam nice it is ;p then you wish you didn't know, coz it makes it so hard to stop.

Nope. But we must realize that cheese is a legal substance and marijuana is not. The question is not whether it harms us or not, it is whether to legalize it or not.
Yeeeessss...

But the argument, ‘it’s illegal so it must be bad’ is a terrible one.

So do we add to the list of things we already know harms us? Why open that door at all?
Because the ‘door’ is already open. Hell, it’s off its hinges. There are innumerable legal substances or activities that can potentially harm ourselves. I don’t see a convincing argument why one substance that can potentially harm (cheese) is legal, why another substance that can potentially harm (weed) is not.

As I said with a government fast tracking on killing the tobacco industry, it doesn’t seem rather idiotic for it to endorse the cannibas industry?
The regulation of the selling of cannabis is an interesting topic, but I don’t see why we should keep a substance legal because of the way another substance is being sold. Especially when it’s so easy to grow your own cannabis. I think it’s nigh-on impossible to grow your own tobacco, at least to the amount that one who smokes it everyday would want.

If our society wants to make marijuana legal so be it. My friends who get it illegally to aid in their cancer treatment will no longer be at risk of jail time. But at the same time get off of tobacco and let’s just let everyone smoke what they want.
Which is basically my position.

The thing is, those who claim it is harmless are only lying to themselves. As you say lots of things aren’t healthy. It’s the hypocrisy of wanting our government to kill tobacco and give legal life to cannibas that is idiotic.
The only difference is there are still people around who started smoking tobacco when the dangers were not apparent, or at least not widely publicised. The same cannot be said about cannabis; we all know the dangers, to the extent that they are often exaggerated to a great degree.

My point is that we should be able to make informed choices about what we do to our bodies.

My thoughts:

At the absolute least, medicinal marijuana should be legal.

But, in all honesty, I have seen no state interest with enough weight to convince me that recreational use should be illegal.

People seem to forget sometimes that the default is always legality. When we talk about legalizing something, what we are really talking about is removing a government control - usually because we do not feel that the government should have that control. When looked at from this perspective, it is really those who wish to see laws against it on the books who must justify their position.

As someone who has been "on the front lines" of this issue for decades, the notion of "skunk weed" --a dangerous, wrecklessly grown super-weed that needs to be treated categorically different than "normal" weed --is ludicrous. There is no such thing.

Juan

Yeeeessss...

But the argument, ‘it’s illegal so it must be bad’ is a terrible one.

That's not what I said. Lots of things legal and illegal are bad. Hell somethings illegal are not so bad in my opinion, I'm sure in yours too. That is not what I was saying. Your comparison was to cheese. Cheese is legal so it is really irrelevent as a comparison.


Because the ‘door’ is already open. Hell, it’s off its hinges. There are innumerable legal substances or activities that can potentially harm ourselves. I don’t see a convincing argument why one substance that can potentially harm (cheese) is legal, why another substance that can potentially harm (weed) is not.

Of course there are lots of things that are not healthy. So what. No one said the only reason to not legalize it was healthy vs unhealthy. Cancer isn't the only 'health' consideration. Hell marijuana isn't healthy to anyone driving on the road that meets up with the stoner who is driving, feeling fine and completely believing he is not too impaired to drive. :( Been there done that. I don't recall cheese having such an affect on anyone.

My point is that we KNOW lots of things are harmful. Why should we sanction one more?


The regulation of the selling of cannabis is an interesting topic, but I don’t see why we should keep a substance legal because of the way another substance is being sold. Especially when it’s so easy to grow your own cannabis. I think it’s nigh-on impossible to grow your own tobacco, at least to the amount that one who smokes it everyday would want.

It is very simple to grow your own tobacco. People did it for centuries before it became an industry to distribute it.

The only difference is there are still people around who started smoking tobacco when the dangers were not apparent, or at least not widely publicised. The same cannot be said about cannabis; we all know the dangers, to the extent that they are often exaggerated to a great degree.

My point is that we should be able to make informed choices about what we do to our bodies.

This would be right in a perfect world where everyone was intelligent and no one had dependency issues on substances. Where everyone had common sense and would abide by things like not driving while under the influence etc. But it isn't a perfect world. In fact it is a world full of people who are idiots and you know this. Too many people simply are not inherently responsible by nature.

Cheese is legal so it is really irrelevent as a comparison.

I see no difference when the comparison is changing the legality of a substance based on it's potential to cause harm to an individual.


Of course there are lots of things that are not healthy. So what. No one said the only reason to not legalize it was healthy vs unhealthy. Cancer isn't the only 'health' consideration. Hell marijuana isn't healthy to anyone driving on the road that meets up with the stoner who is driving, feeling fine and completely believing he is not too impaired to drive. :( Been there done that. I don't recall cheese having such an affect on anyone.

I haven't seen anyone argue that driving under the influence should be legal


My point is that we KNOW lots of things are harmful. Why should we sanction one more?


Individual autonomy

Look I voted yes. Bust really could the government really make its money on taxing pot. One of the reasons that it is so popular is because its pretty simple to get has is. If it were legalized don't you think more people would be growing it theirselves

I see no difference when the comparison is changing the legality of a substance based on it's potential to cause harm to an individual.



I haven't seen anyone argue that driving under the influence should be legal



Individual autonomy

Ok so you think the cheese and marijuana comparison is fine. Let's try this from a different angle but stay on health. Tell me please what positive aspects health wise come from marijuana use.

The positive aspects from the ingestion of cheese are many as we know. I agree that it is unhealthy for some, say the lactose intolerant, those with high cholesterol, and those watching their fat grams or even those bothered with constipation to name a few. For others, basically healthy individuals and children cheese provides a high volume of protien, vitamin A, calcium, and iron among many other things that are healthy for people.

Perhaps the comparison should be for what each contributes to the human body instead of how unhealthy it is.

I am not convinced the comparison is equitable at all, but feel free to try.

Using marijuana (just like smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol) won't definitely cause health problems for every user.
.

Another time when one must say - All users suffer the same fate, the only variables are:

The users Health / genetic disposition at the time
Frequency of use
amount used at a time

Just as all who smoke cigarettes will get the cancers, or whatever early death comes to them because they smoke
All potheads will suffer physical and mental damage because of their habit

Just because youre lucky enough to lose brain cells slower than the next pothead, doesnt mean you arent losing them!

Just as all who smoke cigarettes will get the cancers, or whatever early death comes to them because they smoke



Not true. It grealy increases the change, but does not make it 100%.

Of course there are lots of things that are not healthy. So what. No one said the only reason to not legalize it was healthy vs unhealthy. Cancer isn't the only 'health' consideration. Hell marijuana isn't healthy to anyone driving on the road that meets up with the stoner who is driving, feeling fine and completely believing he is not too impaired to drive. :( Been there done that. I don't recall cheese having such an affect on anyone.

My point is that we KNOW lots of things are harmful. Why should we sanction one more?

Legality is the default. It does not imply any sanction.

Because you want something other than the default, the onus is on you to provide justification for making something illegal.

The question isn't, "Why should we allow one more harmful substance?"

Instead, we must ask, "What authority do we have to ban this harmful substance? What justification do we have? And why should this drug be set apart from other equally or more harmful drugs that we allow?"

Not true. It grealy increases the change, but does not make it 100%.

Just as I said - it comes down to the Person, how often they use, and how much they use each time

Nothing is 100%, but using things that are bad for your health DOES speed up the rate at which you will DIE

The main ingredient behind those here that support drugs is that they just want those good feelings that drugs give them, regardless of whats going to happen to them later in life

End result is, they smoke marijuana to get over the problems now, and cause more problems later, which they will then smoke more marijuana to get over those problems when they happen

And when they become the next Ozzy Osbournes in ex-user retarded hell, we non-users can be happy we didnt go down that road

The main ingredient behind those here that support drugs is that they just want those good feelings that drugs give them, regardless of whats going to happen to them later in life

Is it?

While I do have a bit of alcohol every now and again, I do not use any other recreational drugs. I have never even tried the sorts of things that most people would consider "hard" drugs.

Yet I think that these things should be legal, not because I want to do them, but because I see no reason that another competent adult cannot choose to use them. Anything they do to endanger others as a result of that drug use should be heavily punished (ie. driving under the influence), but I see no justification for the government banning an individual from choosing to endanger themselves in this manner. I definitely see no justification for doing it selectively because some drugs are more socially accepted than others.

Is it?

I see no justification for the government banning an individual from choosing to endanger themselves in this manner. I definitely see no justification for doing it selectively because some drugs are more socially accepted than others.

Okay, so If marijuana gets legalized and some pothead gets heavily wasted and walks into incoming traffic, you see no justification for the government banning an individual from choosing to endanger themselves in this manner

just so long as we are clear on this matter:D
- - - - -
and as long as no-one asks me to actually use my first aid training on these ones - there is too much of a moral issue in trying to save the life of one who doesnt give a damn about his own

Okay, so If marijuana gets legalized and some pothead gets heavily wasted and walks into incoming traffic, you see no justification for the government banning an individual from choosing to endanger themselves in this manner

Jaywalking, causing accidents, etc. are already illegal.

It is not the individual endangering himself that is the problem here. It's all of the people in traffic that he has just endangered. And he must be held responsible for that.

Of course, I'm left trying to imagine the circumstance under which marijuana would be the cause of someone wandering into oncoming traffic.

That’s not what I said. Lots of things legal and illegal are bad. Hell somethings illegal are not so bad in my opinion, I’m sure in yours too. That is not what I was saying. Your comparison was to cheese. Cheese is legal so it is really irrelevent as a comparison.
Not at all.

I was making the point that cheese, in large amounts, can be detrimental to one’s health. As can cannabis. My comparison stands.

My point is that we KNOW lots of things are harmful. Why should we sanction one more?
Because we shouldn’t only legalise things that are not potentially harmful to humans, less we criminalise a huge amount of substances and activities. There is no coherent position in legalising some potentially harmful activities/substances and not others without further reasons as to why.

It is very simple to grow your own tobacco. People did it for centuries before it became an industry to distribute it.
Sure, but at a time when most had small-holdings, grew most of their own crops. My point is that today the average tobacco smoker would not be able to grow enough tobacco to sustain themselves, while it’s a lot more feasible to grow enough cannabis for personal use without the need for at least an allotment or garden.

This would be right in a perfect world where everyone was intelligent and no one had dependency issues on substances. Where everyone had common sense and would abide by things like not driving while under the influence etc. But it isn’t a perfect world. In fact it is a world full of people who are idiots and you know this. Too many people simply are not inherently responsible by nature.
True, I never claimed otherwise. And this brings us back to my point above. Many legal activities/substances create dependence issues for a small minority of users; gambling and alcohol being two good examples. However, instead of criminalising users, we extend help to those few who, for whatever reason, can’t handle the activity/substance on their own. Support networks and the like help these people out, and their work would be less useful if what they were dealing with was an illegal activity/substance.

Once again, no-one’s denying that drug use sometimes turns into drug misuse. But if we were to only legalise those activities/substances that were never misused, then we’d be looking at a very short list of activities/substances indeed.

Jaywalking, causing accidents, etc. are already illegal.

It is not the individual endangering himself that is the problem here. It's all of the people in traffic that he has just endangered. And he must be held responsible for that.

Of course, I'm left trying to imagine the circumstance under which marijuana would be the cause of someone wandering into oncoming traffic.

LOL, ok so just curious. Tell me how responsible do you think a stoner is? That is the problem to me. Stoners are not repsonsible to begin with or they wouldn't be killing their bodies for a buzz. Do you really expect them to be responsible with things like traffic and other peoples safety when they haven't the sense to care about their own bodies?

Let the people smoke up. Don't subsidize it. Don't offer paid treatment. If they fuck up, charge them with the same crime with an impairment charge.
Do the same with every drug.

LOL, ok so just curious. Tell me how responsible do you think a stoner is? That is the problem to me. Stoners are not repsonsible to begin with or they wouldn’t be killing their bodies for a buzz. Do you really expect them to be responsible with things like traffic and other peoples safety when they haven’t the sense to care about their own bodies?
Oh give up.

Why not go the whole hog and tell us why cannabis gives you uncontrollable murderous urges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jB7RBGVGk)?

“Killing their bodies for a buzz”... eeesh!

Tell me how responsible do you think a cheese-eater is? That is the problem to me. Cheese-eaters are not repsonsible to begin with or they wouldn't be eating high-cholesterol, high-fat foods for a buzz.

Let the people smoke up. Don't subsidize it. Don't offer paid treatment. If they fuck up, charge them with the same crime with an impairment charge.
Do the same with every drug.

So the people who can afford the treatment get the better healthcare.
What about the poorer people who smoke it then, do they just have to deal with ill health of taking drugs?
This only increases the problem to those who cannot afford the treatment.
very much a bad idea.

So the people who can afford the treatment get the better healthcare.
Treatment for WHAT? People who are tried of smoking the stuff just-- stop smoking it. Doesn't cost anything, saves the money that used to be spent. What's the problem?

Treatment for WHAT? People who are tried of smoking the stuff just-- stop smoking it. Doesn't cost anything, saves the money that used to be spent. What's the problem?

I wasn't talking specifically about Marijuana, the poster i was replying to was talking about using the idea of effectively marketising healthcare, to all drugs taken.

LOL, ok so just curious. Tell me how responsible do you think a stoner is? That is the problem to me. Stoners are not repsonsible to begin with or they wouldn't be killing their bodies for a buzz. Do you really expect them to be responsible with things like traffic and other peoples safety when they haven't the sense to care about their own bodies?

I actually know some "stoners", as you put it - assuming that what you mean by that is "people who smoke marijuana."

Much like with any drug - alcohol included - there are responsible stoners and irresponsible stoners.

LOL, ok so just curious. Tell me how responsible do you think a stoner is? That is the problem to me. Stoners are not repsonsible to begin with or they wouldn't be killing their bodies for a buzz. Do you really expect them to be responsible with things like traffic and other peoples safety when they haven't the sense to care about their own bodies?

How responsible are people who drink alcohol? Or smoke cigarettes? My dad drinks like a horse and he is a very responsible man, has held one job his whole adult career and now is rather high up on the food chain there. Incredibally smart as well, knows more about physics and mathmatics then I ever will or would want to. My family has never had financial troubles because of him and my mom being good about money, and they raised three kids all within a few years from each other age wise, and we are all fine. No criminal records, do well in school, the like. Oh, and he smoked pot in high school too. By your logic, that should have been an instant life failure.


Your assertion that people who may do substances that cause harm to their bodies (alcohol and the like) are irresponsible is absurd.

Just admit it, your one of those people who thinks that we should have laws against whatever is a "sin".

LOL, ok so just curious. Tell me how responsible do you think a stoner is?

Which stoner?

Which stoner?

Dont you know stoners are all part of a collective hippie hivemind?

SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!

Using marijuana (just like smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol) won't definitely cause health problems for every user.


No, it won't.


So, what you mean to say is that any unnecessary recreation that can cause significant harm to your body should be illegal.
That means we should make driving cars illegal (it's not necessary - you can walk, ride or catch public transport);

Yes, driving recklessly should be (and is) illegal. Same thing with seatbelts, and speed limits.

we should make sky diving illegal (obiviously not necessary and you can die);

Yes, without safety measures taken, it should be (and is) illegal.

we should make surfing illegal (again, it's not necessary and you could drown/break a leg etc);
we should make eating donuts illegal (not necessary, could make you fat and get diabetes) and so on!

What I mean to say is that something like breaking your leg on purpose ('for fun') should be illegal.

I can understand certain things being banned to protect the health of a country's people,

Thank you, so you agree?

but I certainly don't agree with it being banned for financial reasons. Not all countries even pay for their people's health care, plus if the government was really concerned about the financial burden of legalisation, they could put a tax on marijuana.

Marijuana use costs the American society $60 Billion a year. Get that in taxes (You are obviously not very attached to reality in economic matters).


Are you saying that being healthy is more important than having fun?

Yes, why should heroin be illegal? (Should it?)

Are you, then, also against high risk sports such as skydiving or mountain climbing? Increased risk of death exchanged for ... well, we can simplify the reasons to 'having fun'.

Safety measures are taken. Without them, it's illegal (or should be).

Are you also saying that you believe it is important to be healthy, and you also believe strongly enough that you are right, that you would force people to comply?
i.e. your opinion is more 'right' than other peoples? (most people have the view that people have the right to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt out people- this is because although one person may think someone should do this, that person might think they should be doing that, and neither can prove their opinion more valid than the other person's- can you?)
Are you saying that tax shouldn't be used to help people who suffer by their own fault? what about rehab for drug users? it's their fault, so we should just let them die rather than spend tax money helping them?

Ah, we get to the core. You can do whatever you want. BUT:
When you get lung cancer and spent all your money on drugs (how very unlikely..), I believe it's a country's moral duty to not let you die off on some street corner, and so it's humane to take care of you. Which many countries do. Then this money comes from society. We all have responsibilities to society which at times come before our own freedoms.




Oh yeh... Fighting against marijuana costs far more than any other expense incurred by its consumption, or any potential costs regarding it's legalisation.

haha drugged driving accidents? look it up.

I'm fine with you thinking that people should not smoke, do weed, or drink more than a couple glasses of booze. However, that you think this should be law- I.e. you think your opinions should be applied to everyone- this I object to.

I object to my tax-paying dollars going on your recreational activity's reprocutions, yea.

Are you religious? I disagree with religion. I think it is a 'bad' thing. I have plenty of arguments to support this view. However, I would never, even if I could, Force people to give up their religion. It's personal choice.

Does my religion harm you? Does it prevent other people who really need my tax-money from getting it because you needed it because of your 'recreation'?

Yes, the very harmful drugs are illegal, as should be. Their effects are rather more devesating however. They also tend to effect other people, through the actions of someone either high on these drugs, or through the actions of addicts.

You're harming yourself and others unnecessarily both ways.

erm yeh basically your view seems incompatible with the democratic way we like to live, assuming for some reason that you're from the developed western world. Or most of it, anyway. Just because we think something would be good, doesn't mean we can force it on people who disagree. We can only force it on people who disagree if most people think it's really a very good idea/ bad thing.

haha you telling me about democracy? democracy involves responsibilities towards other members of society. And by smoking Cannabis, you aren't fulfilling them.

Marijuana use costs the American society $60 Billion a year. Get that in taxes (You are obviously not very attached to reality in economic matters).

Where does that number come from? Does it include the money spent arresting and incarcerating people for marijuana possession?

If so, you can cut down on an awful lot of wasted taxpayer dollars by ceasing to arrest and incarcerate marijuana users.

Yes, why should heroin be illegal? (Should it?)

I object to my tax-paying dollars going on your recreational activity's reprocutions, yea.

So candy should be illegal?

Where does that number come from? Does it include the money spent arresting and incarcerating people for marijuana possession?

If so, you can cut down on an awful lot of wasted taxpayer dollars by ceasing to arrest and incarcerate marijuana users.

It's from Elks National Foundation.
Um, no, drugged driving accidents cost billions.




So candy should be illegal?

There is strict FDA regulation ensuring the safety of candy. If it causes significant harm to your body, then it should be (and is) illegal.

Where does that number come from? Does it include the money spent arresting and incarcerating people for marijuana possession?

If so, you can cut down on an awful lot of wasted taxpayer dollars by ceasing to arrest and incarcerate marijuana users.

Save time and money in one go - just copy the chinese

When they catch a drug dealer they take them out into a public square and shoot them in the back of the head all for the simple one-time cost of a 9mm slug
Im sure the taxpayers can afford that

when all dealers are gone, the basic users will either have to totally stop using, or grow some and be considered dealers and get a happy 9mm all of their own :mp5:

There is strict FDA regulation ensuring the safety of candy. If it causes significant harm to your body, then it should be (and is) illegal.

You missed the point.

You argued that your tax dollars should not have to pay for someone else's poor health decisions.

If I eat lots and lots of candy, I will likely get fat. I might even end up with Type II Diabetes. These things will cause health issues that will require me to seek medical care. If I cannot afford it, I will have to use state funds.

So should candy be illegal?

I actually know some "stoners", as you put it - assuming that what you mean by that is "people who smoke marijuana."

Much like with any drug - alcohol included - there are responsible stoners and irresponsible stoners.

The discussion was about irresponsible users. Not the occassional social user. If you notice the poster I was addressing stated

Of course, I'm left trying to imagine the circumstance under which marijuana would be the cause of someone wandering into oncoming traffic.

If you have never known anyone who smoked who became so stoned they would be irresponsibe in traffic whether it be driving or walking then I would say you have never known anyone very stoned. ;)

Oh btw, my ex is a stoner and several members of my family so I am more than just a little familiar with it. Some of them are responsible and some of them have pickled their brains from decades of regular (daily) use. I am not talking about the suburban mom or teeny bopper who gets stoned on date night. I am talking about habitual irresponsible users.

You missed the point.

You argued that your tax dollars should not have to pay for someone else's poor health decisions.

If I eat lots and lots of candy, I will likely get fat. I might even end up with Type II Diabetes. These things will cause health issues that will require me to seek medical care. If I cannot afford it, I will have to use state funds.

So should candy be illegal?

I argued that unnecessary actions taken by individuals that cause them significant bodily harm should be illegal. Such practices should be outlawed. Candy itself does not cause you the harm, it is the way you take action with it. Candy itself is not harmfull to your body. Similarly, driving a car is not harmfull to your body. Driving recklessly in a car can be harmfull to your body - and is illegal.
There is a clear difference between these examples and cannabis and other drugs. Cannabis itself is harmfull to your body. It cannot be used in an action where it doesn't harm your body (aside from medicinal.../creams... and so on - other non-recreational use). Therefore it is unnecessary other than for the only action you can take with it that is harmfull to your body. Thus, because of what was said before, it should be outlawed.

If you have never known anyone who smoked who became so stoned they would be irresponsibe in traffic whether it be driving or walking then I would say you have never known anyone very stoned. ;)

I've seen people smoke so much that they smoked themselves sober.

I've seen people for whom marijuana was the top priority in their lives - above school and even loved ones.

I've yet to see it cause anyone to lose themselves enough to walk out into oncoming traffic.

I argued that unnecessary actions taken by individuals that cause them significant bodily harm should be illegal.

Like eating lots of candy?

Such practices should be outlawed. Candy itself does not cause you the harm, it is the way you take action with it.

The occasional smoke isn't going to cause you any significant harm. It is the way you take action with it.

There is a clear difference between these examples and cannabis and other drugs. Cannabis itself is harmfull to your body. It cannot be used in an action where it doesn't harm your body (aside from medicinal.../creams... and so on - other non-recreational use).

If medicinal use is not harmful, neither is recreational use.

Any harm inherent in using cannabis would be seen in patients who use it for medicinal use as well.


Not that it really matters, the amount of authority you are giving the government is completely and utterly unacceptable to anyone who values liberty.

I've seen people smoke so much that they smoked themselves sober.

I've seen people for whom marijuana was the top priority in their lives - above school and even loved ones.

I've yet to see it cause anyone to lose themselves enough to walk out into oncoming traffic.

I see, well I actually have seen people walk out into the road when they were that high and I have seen people drag them out of the road too. That isn't a difficult one to find, just hang out at a campus.:p And without question they have wandered into oncomming traffic while driving. :(

And yes sadly, I have seen people who destroyed their family due to marijuana abuse (not heavier drugs just plain old weed use).

I have never seen anyone smoke themselves sober. I have seen one person who it never seemed to phase if that is what you mean. Marijuana didn't phase him, hash did, but not even that best of weed.

Like eating lots of candy?

Well, I guess, that's a good point you're making. Enforcement issues and so on...
Oh by the way I heard of this one place in the US where they aren't letting obese people get fast food or something like that.


The occasional smoke isn't going to cause you any significant harm.

I'm sorry but despite how ever much you may think you know about Cannabis from perhaps smoking it, Marijuana smoke does in fact have the same cancer causing chemicals as tobacco and does cause respiratory damage, as well as impairment of judgment leading to potential further harm.
Even at lower doses it contributes to car and other kinds of accidents.
Even a one-time use of potent Marijuana can lead to a higher proneness to infection, and impaired memory and learning ability (not to mention the obvious increased heart rate and so on...).

It is the way you take action with it.

Obviously not.

If medicinal use is not harmful, neither is recreational use.

haha right. Let me guess, you're a doctor?

Any harm inherent in using cannabis would be seen in patients who use it for medicinal use as well.

yup.

Not that it really matters, the amount of authority you are giving the government is completely and utterly unacceptable to anyone who values liberty.
haha the argument from libertarianism. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand my friend. Marijuana inevitably leads to intoxication and impairment of good judgment. Impaired minds often make unsafe decisions putting non-users at risk. Non-users have the "right" to sober drivers and drug-free environments. They have the right to not pay $60 Billion a year for your personal recreation that has no public benefit.

If medicinal use is not harmful, neither is recreational use.

Any harm inherent in using cannabis would be seen in patients who use it for medicinal use as well.

No one has said that medicinal use is not harmful. My friends who are cancer patients will tell you it helps them have an appetite and to be able to eat food. To even want to eat. Some types of chemo have deterimental side affects that kill the appetite. Anything that will stimulate the appetite is welcome not because it isn't harmful but because not eating to retain body mass can kill a cancer patient faster than the cancer.

If you have ever worked with cancer patients nothing is quite so heartbreaking as watching a grown man go from 180 pounds to 80 pounds. ANYTHING that will make him want to eat is better than what is happening to his body. That is not saying that marijuana is not harmful.

It is simply the lessor of evils.

Well, I guess, that's a good point you're making. Enforcement issues and so on...
Oh by the way I heard of this one place in the US where they aren't letting obese people get fast food or something like that.

Really? Where?

How many challenges are there to the law?

I'm sorry but despite how ever much you may think you know about Cannabis from perhaps smoking it, Marijuana smoke does in fact have the same cancer causing chemicals as tobacco and does cause respiratory damage, as well as impairment of judgment leading to potential further harm.

Actually, it's more the act of smoking itself that leads to cancer and respiratory damage. Your lungs don't much care for smoke.

There's also the various preservatives, etc. in tobacco.

But that's really beside the point. The point is that, in moderation, marijuana use is very unlikely to cause cancer. It's possible, but so are many things that are perfectly legal.

haha right. Let me guess, you're a doctor?

Not yet. And I won't be an MD. But I do study biology and the effects of drugs.

haha the argument from libertarianism.

More like the argument from "OMG, I don't want the government controlling my every move."

The argument you are making would give the government near-absolute authority over human beings, because any action taken that might harm our health would be cause for legal action.


No one has said that medicinal use is not harmful.

....except Intelligenstan.

My friends who are cancer patients will tell you it helps them have an appetite and to be able to eat food. To even want to eat. Some types of chemo have deterimental side affects that kill the appetite. Anything that will stimulate the appetite is welcome not because it isn't harmful but because not eating to retain body mass can kill a cancer patient faster than the cancer.

If you have ever worked with cancer patients nothing is quite so heartbreaking as watching a grown man go from 180 pounds to 80 pounds. ANYTHING that will make him want to eat is better than what is happening to his body. That is not saying that marijuana is not harmful.

It is simply the lessor of evils.

Believe me, I know this. I tried to get my grandfather to try medicinal marijuana when his chemo was killing his appetite. He was getting so unhealthy from lack of food that they could not continue treatment.

Unfortunately, because marijuana was associated in his mind with "druggie", he wouldn't touch the stuff.

Isn't the stereotype supposed to be a bunch of realists on the anti-cannabis side, with a bunch of confused stoners on the pro-legalization side?

Because that's not what I'm seeing in this thread. I'm sorry, but... FO, Kirschenhatesthejews, Intelligenstan... these people are not offering realism and sobriety. Quite the contrary, they're the ones acting like a bunch of stoned children. FO won't even come back to defend his piss-poor arguments (if he does post in this thread he will deliberately ignore the rebuttals), the others...

Meh. It's just a big disappointment.

Seeing as a drink alcohol it would seem a bit hypocritical of making Cannibis illegal. So i would make it legal, but i wouldn't encourage taking it.
So the option should be there, however it should be discouraged. Of course there are dangers to taking this, albeit not as dangerous as alcohol consumption but still it's a factor.
So i'm for it but, i wouldn't really like to see people taking it, just seems a waste of money as is alcohol really.

/\ This /\

Believe me, I know this. I tried to get my grandfather to try medicinal marijuana when his chemo was killing his appetite. He was getting so unhealthy from lack of food that they could not continue treatment.

Unfortunately, because marijuana was associated in his mind with "druggie", he wouldn't touch the stuff.


I'm so sorry to hear that. There is no question it helps the cancer patient and THC drops helps the glaucoma patient. Interesting that morphine is ok to give patients and tons of people are addicted to it also. Remind me what the reasoning is that it isn't legal for medicinal purposes?

What is really sad is the little old ladies in my cancer group who share a 'dealer' so that they can get some relief. Yet it scares them terribly that they might go to jail. They have quite the underground network. How sad is that?

The discussion was about irresponsible users. Not the occassional social user... I am not talking about the suburban mom or teeny bopper who gets stoned on date night. I am talking about habitual irresponsible users.
I don’t see why someone can’t be a habitual user and be responsible.

the marihuana was the first thing that the mankind harverst thousands years ago, and now cause de north cannot compite with the south for the weather teir plant the HOAX that the pod is "BAD", but the reality is that the COTTON textile industry cannot compite with the textile made of marihuana, thats why was ilegalized a hundred years ago under the LOBBY of the barons of that industry in USA and UK.

The ilegalization of a PLANT is the most arrogant insult to the MOTHER EARTH.

If it's legal it can be taxed. If it's taxed then it benefits the government, and if it benefits the government that means more government projects.

I'm so sorry to hear that. There is no question it helps the cancer patient and THC drops helps the glaucoma patient. Interesting that morphine is ok to give patients and tons of people are addicted to it also. Remind me what the reasoning is that it isn't legal for medicinal purposes?

There really isn't one. Their reasoning is that they place marijuana on a level with cocaine, methamphetamines, LSD, etc. Since they do that, they won't even consider the possibility (despite medical research) that it is medically beneficial.

What is really sad is the little old ladies in my cancer group who share a 'dealer' so that they can get some relief. Yet it scares them terribly that they might go to jail. They have quite the underground network. How sad is that?

Very. And even in states where it is legal, the federal government can still swoop in and arrest a little old lady who grew her own for her cancer or glaucoma.

There really isn't one. Their reasoning is that they place marijuana on a level with cocaine, methamphetamines, LSD, etc. Since they do that, they won't even consider the possibility (despite medical research) that it is medically beneficial.



Very. And even in states where it is legal, the federal government can still swoop in and arrest a little old lady who grew her own for her cancer or glaucoma.

This will change regarding medicinal use when enough lawmakers are dealing with cancer of their own. I would be curious to Elizabeth Edwards views on it. :mad:

Really? Where?

How many challenges are there to the law?

I'm not sure, I only remember it vaguely.


Actually, it's more the act of smoking itself that leads to cancer and respiratory damage. Your lungs don't much care for smoke.

There's also the various preservatives, etc. in tobacco.


But that's really beside the point.

right.

The point is that, in moderation, marijuana use is very unlikely to cause cancer. It's possible, but so are many things that are perfectly legal.

every joint increases your likelihood of getting cancer.
+ all the other effects I mentioned.

Not yet. And I won't be an MD. But I do study biology and the effects of drugs.

More like the argument from "OMG, I don't want the government controlling my every move."

But you are in favor of keeping heroin illegal?

The argument you are making would give the government near-absolute authority over human beings, because any action taken that might harm our health would be cause for legal action.

okay...right.


....except Intelligenstan.

um, no.

Dont you know stoners are all part of a collective hippie hivemind?

SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!

LMAO!

best thing I've read on these forums yet.

I'm generally conservative, but I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana so that those who can benefit from it may do so.

On the other hand, I think the penalty for injuring or risking injury to others while under its influence (such as driving stoned, or getting so high you forget to feed and dress your kids for school) should be being shot in the face until dead. :mp5:

If pot is great and safe, Its proponents should have no problem with that.

I'm sure we can reach some sort of compromise here.

Legalize it with the same restrictions as alcohol.

Marijuana use costs the American society $60 Billion a year. Get that in taxes (You are obviously not very attached to reality in economic matters).

lol. yeh, in fighting it, and prosecuting, and punishing. lol. prosecuting and punishing people who havn't done anything wrong.
this cost would dissapear if it were legal.


Safety measures are taken. Without them, it's illegal (or should be).

Lmao. No it's not.



haha drugged driving accidents? look it up.

Ok. I did.
First link.
Some info.

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).

Seems like weed is a pretty small factor there!

Strangely, google only returned results for Drunk driving, didn't find anything for Drug driving. Maybe it's not such a big issue... but go ahead, you post the links you claim are so easy to find.


I object to my tax-paying dollars going on your recreational activity's reprocutions, yea.
yeh... erm.... the purpose of tax is to even things out. So even those who fail by their own fault, are not left completely behind by our society.
Yes, the rich pay for the cockups of the poor.

I find it interesting how you ignore most of the points made in counter-argument to you, and just focus down on the parts you think you can argue succesfully.

"I object to my tax-paying dollars going on your recreational activity's reprocutions, yea."
I guess you object to the system of the country you live in then. Coz your tax dollars are there to help people less well off than you. Even if it's their fault.
Otherwise, everything would just be privatised, and those who made the most money would get the best of everything.

lol. yeh, in fighting it, and prosecuting, and punishing. lol. prosecuting and punishing people who havn't done anything wrong.
this cost would dissapear if it were legal.


Lmao. No it's not.



Ok. I did.
First link.
Some info.

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).

Seems like weed is a pretty small factor there!

Strangely, google only returned results for Drunk driving, didn't find anything for Drug driving. Maybe it's not such a big issue... but go ahead, you post the links you claim are so easy to find.


According to a study cited by ONDCP, a roadside study of reckless drivers who were NOT under the influece of alchohol showed that one in three tested positive for marijuana alone.

yeh... erm.... the purpose of tax is to even things out. So even those who fail by their own fault, are not left completely behind by our society.
Yes, the rich pay for the cockups of the poor.

"I object to my tax-paying dollars going on your recreational activity's reprocutions, yea."
I guess you object to the system of the country you live in then. Coz your tax dollars are there to help people less well off than you. Even if it's their fault.
Otherwise, everything would just be privatised, and those who made the most money would get the best of everything.

except, billions of my tax dollars are going to waste because you purposefully harm your body when it could be very easily prevented by outlawing the recreational use of a substance that is used solely for a purpose that damages your body.

According to a study cited by ONDCP, a roadside study of reckless drivers who were NOT under the influece of alchohol showed that one in three tested positive for marijuana alone.

What study?

except, billions of my tax dollars are going to waste because you purposefully harm your body

Buddy, you don't HAVE billions of tax dollars to waste. Just - stop. You're embarassing yourself here.

The actual cost of health care for marijuana-related illnesses to you is so laughably small that your bitching about it can only mean personal bias. Since you don't seem to mind government wasting money in other contexts, and in such contexts much more waste is involved for much less good (Iraq, for example).

when it could be very easily prevented by outlawing the recreational use of a substance

Marijuana IS outlawed. It's a minor offense most places, but still a crime.

So, you should be happy to know that since it was made illegal, marijuana use was very easily prevented. Now no one uses marijuana, because it's against the law! ;)

that is used solely for a purpose that damages your body.

What does the "purpose" have to do with legality?
What's the "purpose" of suntanning? Hey there's an idea. Let's outlaw sun tanning. It causes skin cancer, which wastes the BILLIONS of tax dollars you contribute. ;)

I want to hear you argue in righteous indignation that sunblock should be mandatory for anyone over the age of 10 outside in the sun for longer than 10 minutes. Your billions of tax dollars are at stake! Better get on it!

Even at lower doses it contributes to car and other kinds of accidents.


So? We're not saying it should be legal to smoke and drive.
and besides, I've still not seen anything showing me 'deaths caused by people driving while high on marijuana (and nothing else)


Even a one-time use of potent Marijuana can lead to a higher proneness to infection, and impaired memory and learning ability


Bullshit. Source?



haha the argument from libertarianism. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand my friend. Marijuana inevitably leads to intoxication and impairment of good judgment. Impaired minds often make unsafe decisions putting non-users at risk. Non-users have the "right" to sober drivers and drug-free environments. They have the right to not pay $60 Billion a year for your personal recreation that has no public benefit.


MARIJUANA DOES NOT KILL ANYONE! NEITHER DOES IT HARM ANYONE OTHER THAN THE USER. THE US WASTES $60BILL/YEAR ON PERSECUTING MARIJUANA USERS, THAT'S THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT NOT MARIJUANA'S FAULT.

ffs....

"Non-users have the "right" to sober drivers and drug-free environments."
No one's saying we should be allowed to drive around stoned off our face, nor to sit in the kiddys playpark and smoke up.
jeez
open your eyes to reality....

...


I'm not sure, I only remember it vaguely.

....

right.

...


every joint increases your likelihood of getting cancer.
+ all the other effects I mentioned.

...


But you are in favor of keeping heroin illegal?

...


okay...right.

...


um, no.

...




wow, if you remove the things he's quoted, you see that his replies are actually saying..... absolutely nothing. :D

What study?

One study cited by ONDCP.


Buddy, you don't HAVE billions of tax dollars to waste. Just - stop. You're embarassing yourself here.

ok, funny.

The actual cost of health care for marijuana-related illnesses to you is so laughably small that your bitching about it can only mean personal bias.

It's not just healthcare, it's accidents, people's lives, and so on.

Since you don't seem to mind government wasting money in other contexts, and in such contexts much more waste is involved for much less good (Iraq, for example).

That's really related.


Marijuana IS outlawed. It's a minor offense most places, but still a crime.

Yup, and should stay that way. Isn't that what this is about?

So, you should be happy to know that since it was made illegal, marijuana use was very easily prevented. Now no one uses marijuana, because it's against the law! ;)

Here's a little history lesson:
In 1979 numerous states decriminalized marijuana, the White House supported it. The result: the highest levels of youth drug abuse of any civilized nation with one in ten high school seniors stoned on pot every single day. This policy was reversed and with strong law enforcement, youth drug use was cut in half and is still on decline.

What does the "purpose" have to do with legality?
What's the "purpose" of suntanning? Hey there's an idea. Let's outlaw sun tanning. It causes skin cancer, which wastes the BILLIONS of tax dollars you contribute. ;)


I want to hear you argue in righteous indignation that sunblock should be mandatory for anyone over the age of 10 outside in the sun for longer than 10 minutes. Your billions of tax dollars are at stake! Better get on it!

If there was a special tanning lotion that caused exposure to the sun to increase the risk of skin cancer then it should be banned.
That's a better analogy.

"Non-users have the "right" to sober drivers and drug-free environments."
No one's saying we should be allowed to drive around stoned off our face, nor to sit in the kiddys playpark and smoke up.
jeez
open your eyes to reality....

You know that and I know that. But the sad truth is people already do this, so do you believe legalizing it would make that better? That somehow it being easier to obtain would make people drive less often under the influence? Or that people would actually stay out of public places when they are stoned? Places like public parks, amusement parks, bowling alleys, skating rinks, theaters...let's say recreational places where children might be...do you think it is reasonable to believe people would be more responsible than they are now?

If so, why do you believe that?

According to a study cited by ONDCP, a roadside study of reckless drivers who were NOT under the influece of alchohol showed that one in three tested positive for marijuana alone.

Whoa baby, gimme links, gimme quotes, don't gimme quote-from-memory, that's not the way i swing... I wouldn't trust my memory if I were trying to PROVE something against someones opinions... it's not a reliable source. not 100%.
And hey, you might even have been just making it up ;p


except, billions of my tax dollars are going to waste because you purposefully harm your body when it could be very easily prevented by outlawing the recreational use of a substance that is used solely for a purpose that damages your body.

And yet again, this is money spent fighting the drug, not treating people from sickness or addiction caused by it.
Seeing as the USA would much prefer to imprison than rehab a patient anyway...

hospital costs from marijuana related illness would be easily covered by a tax on weed.

you always ignore the important counter arguments....

and the ones you do adress, you never reply with links to back you up, or with facts that seem to be agreed on by everyone.

The sooner the drugs are hanged and tried.. or whatever order you prefer... the sooner we can go back to the days of luring children onto slave ships with candy.

/sleep-deprived

So? We're not saying it should be legal to smoke and drive.

Good. But the facts are that 68% of marijuana users smoke and drive.

and besides, I've still not seen anything showing me 'deaths caused by people driving while high on marijuana (and nothing else)
Bullshit. Source?

Elks. Same one as before.


MARIJUANA DOES NOT KILL ANYONE! NEITHER DOES IT HARM ANYONE OTHER THAN THE USER. THE US WASTES $60BILL/YEAR ON PERSECUTING MARIJUANA USERS, THAT'S THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT NOT MARIJUANA'S FAULT.

Caps help your case much. Facts show that Marijuana leads to accidents that can kill people. As I've said before, being intoxicated causes bad judgement leading to poor decisions. It's that simple.
The money includes healthcare and damage from accidents, so on...

ffs....

"Non-users have the "right" to sober drivers and drug-free environments."
No one's saying we should be allowed to drive around stoned off our face, nor to sit in the kiddys playpark and smoke up.
jeez
open your eyes to reality....
look above at the 68%.

One study cited by ONDCP.

What does ONDCP stand for if I might ask?



Here's a little history lesson:
In 1979 numerous states decriminalized marijuana, the White House supported it. The result: the highest levels of youth drug abuse of any civilized nation with one in ten high school seniors stoned on pot every single day. This policy was reversed and with strong law enforcement, youth drug use was cut in half and is still on decline.


I am not surprised at this, I graduated high school in 1979 being stoned all day at school was not unusual at all. Smoking cigarettes at school was legal so it wasn't hard to stay stoned at school. We also kept alcohol in our lockers. :rolleyes:

Edit to add: Of course we all had pickup trucks with gun racks in the back and rifles and shells in the trucks...at school. It was just a completely different era frankly. We would have never dreamed of shooting each other for instance and yet I bet 50%+ of my senior class had rifles at school every single day. Times have changed a lot.

Whoa baby, gimme links, gimme quotes, don't gimme quote-from-memory, that's not the way i swing... I wouldn't trust my memory if I were trying to PROVE something against someones opinions... it's not a reliable source. not 100%.
And hey, you might even have been just making it up ;p

don't believe it. Noone's forcing you.


And yet again, this is money spent fighting the drug, not treating people from sickness or addiction caused by it.
Seeing as the USA would much prefer to imprison than rehab a patient anyway...

healthcare, accidents, as I'm repeatedly saying.

hospital costs from marijuana related illness would be easily covered by a tax on weed.

because you are an economist and know the exact money involved. I think not. I also have a hunch that you're wrong (but I'm also not an economist).

you always ignore the important counter arguments....

and the ones you do adress, you never reply with links to back you up, or with facts that seem to be agreed on by everyone.

You don't have to believe anything. You can do your own research if you need, I'm just posting what I know.

You know that and I know that. But the sad truth is people already do this, so do you believe legalizing it would make that better? That somehow it being easier to obtain would make people drive less often under the influence? Or that people would actually stay out of public places when they are stoned? Places like public parks, amusement parks, bowling alleys, skating rinks, theaters...let's say recreational places where children might be...do you think it is reasonable to believe people would be more responsible than they are now?

If so, why do you believe that?

because of the example of Amsterdam. Because that if smoking weed were legal, it would become socially acceptable, and there would be social norms regarding it's use. Much as people's behaviour when drunk is at least restrained by the way it would be 'frowned upon' for them to do certain things or go certain places.

Putting things out in the open generally results in more responsible practise. Think sex ed as a good example :D

Because yes, legalisation doesn't increase the number of people doing weed, it just lets them do it legally.

Think about the number of government adverts trying to convince you to quit weed (i'm uk but i assume its similar in the USA). Do you think they work?
On the other hand, if they were giving out useful info on safe use, or treating other people with respect in how you impose your actions upon them, or whatever...
education>discouragement

I can't imagine anyone being OK with people being stoned in unsuitable places, or smoking weed in unsuitable places. If it were legal, then there would be an oppurtunity for people to express this, and to communicate it freely to the users.

don't believe it. Noone's forcing you.


healthcare, accidents, as I'm repeatedly saying.

because you are an economist and know the exact money involved. I think not. I also have a hunch that you're wrong (but I'm also not an economist).


You don't have to believe anything. You can do your own research if you need, I'm just posting what I know.

I would question the purpose of debate, if not to convince someone else that our view is correct, or otherwise just to prove that they are incorrect, whether or not they accept it.

So surely the purpose of serious debates on internet forums IS to prove your POV?

I would question the purpose of debate, if not to convince someone else that our view is correct, or otherwise just to prove that they are incorrect, whether or not they accept it.

So surely the purpose of serious debates on internet forums IS to prove your POV?

No absolutely not. This isn't a debate. I didn't refer to anything anyone else posted before me. I had simply posted what I know and think about the issue and responded to any references to my post. My aim is really not to convince you, although it would be nice. I am aware from past experiences that people who don't wish to accept certain facts are often times people who don't want to believe something because it will come in conflict with other principles they hold (such as smoking Cannabis). And that's fine, because you can believe what ever you want to. I was just responding to comments on my original posts and no more.

What does ONDCP stand for if I might ask?


Office of National Drug Contol Policy.

Another time when one must say - All users suffer the same fate, the only variables are:

The users Health / genetic disposition at the time
Frequency of use
amount used at a time

Just as all who smoke cigarettes will get the cancers, or whatever early death comes to them because they smoke
All potheads will suffer physical and mental damage because of their habit

Just because youre lucky enough to lose brain cells slower than the next pothead, doesnt mean you arent losing them!

Not all cigarette smokers get cancer or die because of smoking.




Marijuana use costs the American society $60 Billion a year. Get that in taxes

I don't live in America, but I'm sure that a lot of that money is spent on the court cases and jail for marijuana-related crimes.

(You are obviously not very attached to reality in economic matters).

:rolleyes:

Yes, why should heroin be illegal? (Should it?)

I'm torn with this: one one hand, it should be illegal because so many deaths are caused by it; on the other hand, why should the government be able to tell us what we can and can't consume?

Ah, we get to the core. You can do whatever you want. BUT:
When you get lung cancer and spent all your money on drugs (how very unlikely..), I believe it's a country's moral duty to not let you die off on some street corner, and so it's humane to take care of you. Which many countries do. Then this money comes from society. We all have responsibilities to society which at times come before our own freedoms.

So everything that could damage your health should be illegal because society shouldn't have to pay for people's ill-health caused by 'dangerous' things? Like I said, there are so many things you'd have to ban according to that reasoning, starting with junk food.

I object to my tax-paying dollars going on your recreational activity's reprocutions, yea.

Then don't pay your taxes. My taxes go to roads I don't drive on, schools I don't attend, etc.

Does my religion harm you? Does it prevent other people who really need my tax-money from getting it because you needed it because of your 'recreation'?

What makes you think that every single pot smoker is going to spend your taxes? I have private health insurance anyway, so I don't use the public hospital system.

You're harming yourself and others unnecessarily both ways.

Smoking pot alone doesn't harm anyone but yourself, and I don't think anyone has the right to say I can't harm myself.

democracy involves responsibilities towards other members of society. And by smoking Cannabis, you aren't fulfilling them.

1. Agreed.
2. Disagreed.

The arguements against legalization I have seen so far...

1. It is harmful. Which has largely been debunked by Amor and Chumbly. So I wont touch that.
2. The moralist pro-nanny state arguement.


This is what I dont get...

WARNING! INCOMING GENERALIZATION

Why is it that conservatives bitch all the time about government regulation of business with the "its their property" arguement, and complain so much about the government interfering with their personal property and taking their money and regulating how they get and use their guns, but see no problem with regulating what people do with their own bodies? I dont get the logical disconnect there.

If you really favor the government not interfering with your property, etc then you should favor the governmen not interfering with what you do with your body. Oh wait, thats right, conservatives want to outlaw biblical sin. :rolleyes:

Oh, and to the poster who said we aught to also ban tobacco and alchohol, youll take my booze and cigarettes over my cold, dead body.

I better not wear clothes made of two materials... isn't that a sin?

Not all cigarette smokers get cancer or die because of smoking.
No, but smoking in general is bad 4 u.

I don't live in America, but I'm sure that a lot of that money is spent on the court cases and jail for marijuana-related crimes.
Hrmm... maybe, maybe not. Source plz.

:rolleyes:
:p

I'm torn with this: one one hand, it should be illegal because so many deaths are caused by it; on the other hand, why should the government be able to tell us what we can and can't consume?
The government is made of people, but why should people tell people what to do? Heck, why should I do anything at all? Or not do anything? What motivation does this blank slate have?


So everything that could damage your health should be illegal because society shouldn't have to pay for people's ill-health caused by 'dangerous' things? Like I said, there are so many things you'd have to ban according to that reasoning, starting with junk food.
Exactly. For the good of the nation, ban it. Let it be written, let it be done.

Then don't pay your taxes. My taxes go to roads I don't drive on, schools I don't attend, etc.
Not paying taxes = illegal = arrest = jailez = anal rape
No fun.

What makes you think that every single pot smoker is going to spend your taxes? I have private health insurance anyway, so I don't use the public hospital system.
Obviously all pot-heads are on welfare. Or is it potheads.. though I read that as poth eads.

Smoking pot alone doesn't harm anyone but yourself, and I don't think anyone has the right to say I can't harm myself.
Greenhouse gases kill.

I better not wear clothes made of two materials... isn't that a sin?
Let's not be absurd. Your primary offense is being a woman.

No absolutely not. This isn't a debate. I didn't refer to anything anyone else posted before me. I had simply posted what I know and think about the issue and responded to any references to my post. My aim is really not to convince you, although it would be nice. I am aware from past experiences that people who don't wish to accept certain facts are often times people who don't want to believe something because it will come in conflict with other principles they hold (such as smoking Cannabis). And that's fine, because you can believe what ever you want to. I was just responding to comments on my original posts and no more.

sounds like a debate to me. :/

If you showed me hard facts from reliable sources, to back up stuff you said, then you might convince me.
You wouldn't convince me to stop smoking, because it's my choice if I want to harm myself ;p but you might change whether I thought it should be legal or not.
However, your view that the government should take total control of people's lives is...

It seems to encourage a totalitarian government that takes a large amount of control in the lives of the individual, enforcing current sensibilities on what things it is 'good' and 'bad' to do- sensibilites that might well change significantly as our knowledge about the world we live in, and how we interact with it, increases, and as societies views on subjects change, for various reasons.
It seems to a be a view that decreases personal responsibility, with the payoff being increased overall safety (and also slightly lower taxes).
This is a 'negative development, decreased risk' strategy- without risks or personal responsibility, humanity stagnates. Motivation, innovation... they fade.
We will stay the same. We will live. We shall be safe.

We shall be worthless.


Life without risks, is not worth living. I hope you can see why this is so. Beyond a certain point, # risks tends to increase with how worthwhile life is. This includes financial risks, emotional risks, etc, etc.

Needless to say, humans in general gravitate to an area of the scale not at 'optimum pleasure, high risk'. Some prefer the high end of the scale though- and indeed, some activities that would rank among 'high risk high pleasure' are illegal.
But the reverse is true- low risk, low pleasure is as sparsely populated as the other end.
I'm saying marijuana use falls within the 'acceptable risk' zone.
Here in the UK there are frequent outcries against the 'nanny state', and often the government responds with agreeing that it is not good to be too protective.

The USA seems more 'low risk low pleasure'- for instance the fear of being sued/taken to court seems to prevent people doing an awful lot of things.
Although I'm not an expert on that, it's just the way people tend to think it is in America. I don't know how accurate the stereotype is. Although I'd assume there is truth behind it.

every joint increases your likelihood of getting cancer.

Maybe YOU will answer me . . .

What about those who eat it rather than smoke it?

Office of National Drug Contol Policy.


Thanks

because of the example of Amsterdam. Because that if smoking weed were legal, it would become socially acceptable, and there would be social norms regarding it's use. Much as people's behaviour when drunk is at least restrained by the way it would be 'frowned upon' for them to do certain things or go certain places.

Putting things out in the open generally results in more responsible practise. Think sex ed as a good example :D

Because yes, legalisation doesn't increase the number of people doing weed, it just lets them do it legally.

Think about the number of government adverts trying to convince you to quit weed (i'm uk but i assume its similar in the USA). Do you think they work?
On the other hand, if they were giving out useful info on safe use, or treating other people with respect in how you impose your actions upon them, or whatever...
education>discouragement

I can't imagine anyone being OK with people being stoned in unsuitable places, or smoking weed in unsuitable places. If it were legal, then there would be an oppurtunity for people to express this, and to communicate it freely to the users.

When I was in college (90s...round two ;)) a classmate of mine did a research project on drugs in some country (I can't remember which one, may have been Amersterdam) and their methods of dealing with legalization and what was expected of their police (clean needles supply for anyone requesting such, free trips to rehab etc). The nation's police had a completely different role than ours in that it's purpose was to help people. Drug addiction was recognized as a national problem but was dealt with in the form of help instead of punishment. And even though intravenous drugs were outlawed anyone wanting a free needle could obtain one with no reprisals at any police station. This was deep in the aids epidemic so clean needles were a huge issue. Anyway he made a great presentation for all the good that legalizing drugs could bring to an economy. (The class was International Trade and Finance).

The second part of the research had to be a comparison of what such policies would do to the US. While he could make some very good cases for use of their methods in the US, particularly social cases, the one pitfall he found was that the ability to institute such policies on a country the size/population of the US was extremely prohibitive in cost. Not in any way or form would a reasonable tax on it pay for what it would take to accomodate our society in expected related expenses. His solution to that problem was that though it could be legalized it would only reflect the same rate of success if it were taxed at an enormous rate.

This angle produced some interesting data, (remember we are in an advanced econ class so this is the real issue of the research) it showed a cost effective solution (high tax rate) while at the same time it would supposedly reduce the number of poor users (those expected to become abusers...taking into consideration an economic coorelation between abuse and the poor). In other words it would be so expensive that the poor could not afford to be users. Thus in his example addiction was reduced.

The one thing he pointed out though was that by driving the price of legalized marijuana so high it would then create an underground economy for the poor, since it was so easy to grow. Which of course puts us right back to square one in reality. Legalizing it didn't change a thing, except those who tried to abide by the law paid out big bucks to do so. Those who didn't care...well didn't care and if they were successful in obtaining it, soon all classes would be back to the underground economy we had in the first place.

His hypothetical using actual laws in another country, would not in fact have worked here at all in reality. Mainly because it is a completely different demographic set of variables. You can't with any real value compare Amsterdam with the US in reality if based on nothing else but the sheer size difference of the population.

It was a great project and proved many of our theories in econ which was the point of the assignment. His project was a whole lot more interesting than mine for sure. ;)


As far as your question of whether I think the ads work or not. I like to think so. The reality of how completely stupid it is to take ones life for granted is in those ads. I suspect those who are not using get the ads much more than those who are using though.

According to a study cited by ONDCP, a roadside study of reckless drivers who were NOT under the influece of alchohol showed that one in three tested positive for marijuana alone.


And what percentage of reckless drivers were in the category of "not under the influence of alcohol"?

Good. But the facts are that 68% of marijuana users smoke and drive.

If that's a fact then you can link me to your source that proves it.

No, but smoking in general is bad 4 u.

omgz realli!!!1?

Lots of things are bad for you.


Hrmm... maybe, maybe not. Source plz.

I don't want to look it up. I don't care what the American government spends on marijuana, but when I read 'Reefer Madness' by Eric Schlosser, I remember hearing that a ridiculous amount of tax money was spent on the trials and jailing of those caught for cannibis-related crimes.


The government is made of people, but why should people tell people what to do?

Well that's a question to ask yourself, I suppose.

Not paying taxes = illegal = arrest = jailez = anal rape
No fun.

It might do him some good. ;)


Obviously all pot-heads are on welfare. Or is it potheads.. though I read that as poth eads.

No, not all "pot-heads" are on welfare.


Greenhouse gases kill.

They sure do.

Let's not be absurd. Your primary offense is being a woman.[/QUOTE]

Clearly.

What nonsense. You already pay out the ass to keep minor drug offenders living it up in prison. Guaranteed. On the other hand, the risk of disease is not "inevitable" from marijuana use, and the price on taxpayers for treating possible disease is far less than the burden of paying for the certainty of needless prison sentences.

By any rational estimation your proposal here is stupid.

*nods*

Same as tobacco. Also, mental illness, like depression.

Source?

Pot can increase the risks of developing schitzophrenia in those already suseptible and can cause paranoia. I think if there's anything to suggest it could cause depression it would 1. be in those who are already depressed, and 2. be because of the social arkwardness the illegality of smoking marijuana causes.

If you're stupid enough to use something that will DEFINITELY damage your lungs, why should we pay for you?

It don't DEFINITELY damage your lungs to the point that you need medical treatment.

"DEFINITELY," "inevitably," seems like you're still hinging your argument on the flawed premise that smoking marijuana is a 100% guarantee of crippling, expensive diseases. It's not, kid. Not even close.

Exactly.

That's why it's just as illegal to drive high as it is to drive drunk. :eek: Shocking, ain't it.

Exactly.

I would never ever ever drive high or drunk.

Skunk is a much more concentrated form of marijuana, grown using not-very-good for you techniques. Kinda like battery farmed weed. All the scientifically proven links between weed and mental health problems, as far as I know, have been shown only for skunk.
Ie, it's quite likely to harm you. Unlike non-skunky weed, which is very unlikely to harm you.
It's got nothing to do with the taste- in fact skunk is likely to taste (much) worse.
It's not that other herb is lower quality, just lower concentrations and growing methods. and you can get some pretty strong stuff which isn't skunk ;p
It's partially the growing methods, too- the way skunk is grown is far from natural, and the methods used result in a drug that causes more harm than 'naturally' grown weed.
I'm aware I'm not being very technical here, but I'm very sure that my points are correct, although possibly not on all details (reasons) they are on the effects ;p sorry that I'm not more educated on this.
"(and you never see anyone walking out of a club with schwag) and (I've heard, anecdotally) efficacious" I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here :/ I don't know what 'schwag' means for a start :p

Does that clarify why skunk would still be illegal?

This whole "skunk" argument gets on my nerves. You (and I) probably don't even know the difference between "skunk" and other types of weed. The main problem is lacing (with speed, PCP, GHB etc) and poor growing environments. Government regulation would stop this problem.

Heh mental health issues are not just strng skunk, it depends on how suscepible you are, what age you start.

Again with the 'hard' drugs, depends on what sort of person you are, some people will certianly move onto other drugs from using MJ.

Again some people find it mentaly adictive, some people get agitated or argumentative when their supply runs out.

All substances have their bad points, all of them, to say otherwise is pretty blinkered thinking.

See the thing is that assholes are assholes no matter what. If someone's agitated when they run out, it's their fault, not pot's fault.

But I agree with you: all substances have their bad points.

Marijuana is NOT chemically addictive. At all. So... no.

He said "mentally". Pot (and the internet, and porn, and food etc) can be psychologically addictive.

There is no "Freedom to give everybody else lung cancer".


How do I "give everyone else lung cancer" when I smoke a cone in the privacy of my own home?

For everyone that says weed is harmless maybe you should learn a couple of facts.

I don't think it's harmless.

Again with the ‘definitely’. It’s not inevitable that smoking cannabis will irreparably damage your lungs.

More importantly, why should I be prevented from doing something that has a chance of harming me? Should I also be prevented from riding in a car, from going bungee jumping, from eating too much cheese, from ordering a take-away a couple of nights a week? All these activities have the potential to harm me quite seriously; fatally in some cases.

Why aren’t you petitioning to ban the consumption of cheese?


And there is no chance that me lighting up in the privacy of my own home will give ‘everybody’ lung cancer.


Grow up and post some real arguments.



Agreed.

I think that is the only viable option. Legalise all recreational drugs, teach people the dangers of them, and let us be grown up enough to make up our own minds.

That or take the really brave step of outlawing tabbaco and alchol.

That's what I believe.

Well, I used to, but I feel that perhaps it could be wrong to legalise heroin and crystal meth, just because it's so dangerous.

I'd prefer to give up weed than cheese.

Hell no. I'd rather give up cheese, and I love cheese.



My point is that we should be able to make informed choices about what we do to our bodies.

I agree.

And when they become the next Ozzy Osbournes in ex-user retarded hell, we non-users can be happy we didnt go down that road

You make me laugh.

Trust me, Ozzy didn't get that way because of pot.


LOL, ok so just curious. Tell me how responsible do you think a stoner is? That is the problem to me. Stoners are not repsonsible to begin with or they wouldn't be killing their bodies for a buzz. Do you really expect them to be responsible with things like traffic and other peoples safety when they haven't the sense to care about their own bodies?

Out of curiostiy, you think people who drink are irresponsible?

There's a big difference between harming your body and someone elses.

I smoke pot. The other day my fiance and I were the only people who stopped to call an ambulance for a poor man who had been robbed. He was lying on the ground, shirtless, and sobbing. Everyone - well-dressed business men, old women, young proffessionals etc - walked past. No one stopped. I did. Am I an irresponsible person?

If you have never known anyone who smoked who became so stoned they would be irresponsibe in traffic whether it be driving or walking then I would say you have never known anyone very stoned. ;)

I'm really responsible when I walk if I'm drunk or stoned. Obviously I try and avoid walking at all, but if I have to, I always cross at the lights. The thing is that every single person is different. If a guy hits a guy when he's drunk, it's not alcohol's fault, it's the guy's fault. If you're a bad person, you're a bad person. It's pretty simple. Pot doesn't change people.

And yes sadly, I have seen people who destroyed their family due to marijuana abuse (not heavier drugs just plain old weed use).

It's not the drugs fault, it's his fault.

I don’t see why someone can’t be a habitual user and be responsible.

I am. ;)

I'm generally conservative, but I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana so that those who can benefit from it may do so.

On the other hand, I think the penalty for injuring or risking injury to others while under its influence (such as driving stoned, or getting so high you forget to feed and dress your kids for school) should be being shot in the face until dead. :mp5:

If pot is great and safe, Its proponents should have no problem with that.

I'm sure we can reach some sort of compromise here.

I agree with you. I think you should never endanger other people. Driving stoned or neglecting your children should be illegal.

Legalize it with the same restrictions as alcohol.

Yep.

MARIJUANA DOES NOT KILL ANYONE! NEITHER DOES IT HARM ANYONE OTHER THAN THE USER. THE US WASTES $60BILL/YEAR ON PERSECUTING MARIJUANA USERS, THAT'S THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT NOT MARIJUANA'S FAULT.


Lol. I totally agree.

Good. But the facts are that 68% of marijuana users smoke and drive.

Haha. Fact? Source, please?

I would never drive after smoking, and it should be treated just like driving under the influence of alcohol.

See the thing is that assholes are assholes no matter what. If someone's agitated when they run out, it's their fault, not pot's fault.

And that is the very blinkered view that I have been talking about. Answer me this one then. Do you know people who are differant when they are drunk from when they are sober? Do you know people who drink a lot that are nasty when they have been without for a while? Do you really think that their dependance on alchol has no bearing on this?

And that is the very blinkered view that I have been talking about. Answer me this one then. Do you know people who are differant when they are drunk from when they are sober? Do you know people who drink a lot that are nasty when they have been without for a while? Do you really think that their dependance on alchol has no bearing on this?

No, the blinkered view you were talking about was that people who believe there's no harm in smoking pot have a blinkered view.

Yes, I do know people who act somewhat differently when they are drunk, but that doesn't mean they're changed as a person. If someone's nasty, they're nasty. It's simple. If someone has a dependance on alcohol, it's their own fault. The way they behave is their own responsibilty.

I've noticed a lot of the arguments aganst pot are actually caused by abnning it. Just an observation.

No, the blinkered view you were talking about was that people who believe there's no harm in smoking pot have a blinkered view.

Yes, I do know people who act somewhat differently when they are drunk, but that doesn't mean they're changed as a person. If someone's nasty, they're nasty. It's simple. If someone has a dependance on alcohol, it's their own fault. The way they behave is their own responsibilty.

Then you truely are not thinking straight. Are you really saying that drugs do not have the power to change a person?

ban the possession of nothing, but carfully scrutinize everything sold for profit.

grow your own to your hearts contend. barter it, consume it yourself, or give it away. but don't even think about selling it.

that's cameroi's policy on any substance or artifact a majority of people actually want to not see bought and sold. a mojority of actual flesh and blood people, not some chaimber of comerce or corporate mafia.

and if a mojority of real flesh and blood people don't vote to keep something unlawful to sell, it don't stay that way either. nothing may be baned from sale without a sunset clause requiring renewal by popular vote either.

banning mere possession of anything is banned under cameroi's constitution.

forbiding the sale for profit, mass production or wholesale importation with intent of sale, are however permitted. cars and guns being examples of this ban. but there is no restriction on anything anyone wants to make or grow for their own consumption in their home workshop or backyard garden.

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

I'm one of those 'crybabies' that want full legalisation of drugs. I believe we can overcome much of the problems associated with drug abuse if we have a responsible attitude towards substances. One can quite responsibly imbue a number of substances without your life/society collapsing.

I think that is the only viable option. Legalise all recreational drugs, teach people the dangers of them, and let us be grown up enough to make up our own minds.

That or take the really brave step of outlawing tabbaco and alchol.

Well, quite frankly, you're both ignorant. Do you have any idea what mass ice use would do to society?

Well, quite frankly, you're both ignorant. Do you have any idea what mass ice use would do to society?

Well let me compound my ignoance by stateing that I have no idea of what ice is?

As to it's mass use, do you then equate the legality of a substance with it's usage?

Well let me compound my ignoance by stateing that I have no idea of what ice is?

Ice is crystal meth. Users become psychotic and violent; you can see them at the hospital, takes seven guys to hold them down. Ever played that game Bioshock? It's a lot like that, except without magic.

As to it's mass use, do you then equate the legality of a substance with it's usage?

Can you imagine what would happen if ice was sold like tobacco or alcohol?