NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blog.norml.org/2008/07/30/congress-sets-sights-on-cannabis-prohibition-laws-major-press-conference-today-in-washington/

If this bill passes, federal penalties for the possesion of up to 100 grams of marijuana will be eliminated. Its like a dream come true.

Never going to happen. Sorry. People will never learn how to use it responsibly.

Nice to see that our government has tossed aside boring issues that affect average Americans like oil drilling and are focusing on important things like decriminalizing pot for the junkies.

Tag it with the same rules as tobacco cigarettes, at least tobacco doesn't give me headaches from second-hand smoke.

Never going to happen. Sorry. People will never learn how to use it responsibly.

Exactly why we have safer drugs like alcohol that people use responsibly.

Exactly why we have safer drugs like alcohol that people use responsibly.

Yeah, because some people will just never learn. Still, all this would do is let kids get their hands on the stuff, and it would expose it to them from an early age due to secondhand smoke--and no, I never said I supported legalized smoking either ;)

The way I see it is, the more pot heads there are, the stupider they get, so it'll be easier to take over the world.

I don't see this ever passing.

It seems perfectly reasonable,sane,sensible and humane. Which is why the damn federal government won't do it this century.

I don't see how it can fail; it has Ron Paul's support.

I don't see how it can fail; it has Ron Paul's support.

Thank you. The more RuPaul jokes there are the happier I am. Thank you, sir.

Nice to see that our government has tossed aside boring issues that affect average Americans like oil drilling and are focusing on important things like decriminalizing pot for the junkies.

1. One day out of 100 that the top headline isn't about oil drilling hardly means the issue's been "tossed aside".
2. Pot does not tend to be the drug of choice for most "junkies".
3. The number of people in jail on ridiculous drug charges--and the tax burden placed on the rest of us--is definitely pertinent to the average U.S. American.

It seems perfectly reasonable,sane,sensible and humane. Which is why the damn federal government won't do it this century.

Pretty much. Plus the tobacco companies would slaughter them.

Yeah, because some people will just never learn. Still, all this would do is let kids get their hands on the stuff, and it would expose it to them from an early age due to secondhand smoke--and no, I never said I supported legalized smoking either ;)

Which do you think is easier to get for youngsters...beer or pot? Teenagers have a much easier time getting pot than they do beer. Figure out why.

1. One day out of 100 that the top headline isn't about oil drilling hardly means the issue's been "tossed aside".

It certainly doesn't show that they're focused. Reminds me of how after building a border fence got too boring to discuss we went onto the next stupid subject. I'd like some consistency. But again, it's not that different things can't be discussed in Congress; I'd just like them to be important topics and not just attempts to throw bones to the potheads.

2. Pot does not tend to be the drug of choice for most "junkies".

It does in my corner of Jersey. Even then though I don't care which illegal substance is most favored. I'm sure plenty of druggies like crack and meth, but that's not the topic; if this was about meth I'd still be agitated.

3. The number of people in jail on ridiculous drug charges--and the tax burden placed on the rest of us--is definitely pertinent to the average U.S. American.

Jails and the legal system are a mess in general. The drug situation is only the tip of the iceberg. Even the death penalty looks like a bureaucracy for dead men walking. I'm all for reform, until then don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Man, Ron Paul and Kucinich love them useless initiatives don't they?

Man, Ron Paul and Kucinich love them useless initiatives don't they?
They just want to look cool to the youth. Since all the youth smoke the pot.

They just want to look cool to the youth. Since all the youth smoke the pot.

Kucinich has the hot wife angle too.

Kucinich has the hot wife angle too.

And his not-so-hot love interest, Micheal.

Never going to happen. Sorry. People will never learn how to use it responsibly.

Wow, really?

How about going and finding some statistics on car crashes involving alcohol, and then doing the same for car crashes involving marijuana?

Please, let me know what you find.

THC obviously needs to be pumped into the Capitol Building the day that this is voted on.

Nice to see that our government has tossed aside boring issues that affect average Americans like oil drilling and are focusing on important things like decriminalizing pot for the junkies.

Yep, because the hundreds of millions of dollars saved would be absolutely meaningless.

Yep, because the hundreds of millions of dollars saved would be absolutely meaningless.

Again, I support reforming the justice system. Preaching to choir. I think there are more important things to worry about than fixing the pot laws. Let's start with the major focus of spending in Washington, like all the bs entitlement programs. Let's cut the pork before we cut the drug-busting.

Again, I support reforming the justice system.

Can you even begin to fathom how much money is wasted in the justice system on people caught with minimal amounts of marijuana? The system needs to clothe, feed, and take care of these people through health care. Now spread that across roughly a million people over an average of a year.

Get it?

Forgetting the hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars saved by taking criminals convicted on charges of marijuana possession, use or sale of, consider how much of an economic boon this would create.

Basically, with a swirl of a pen and the drop of a gavel, you create a market consisting of millions of Americans for private companies to capitalize on. Imagine the economic benefits. And, because of this privatization, the drug becomes standardized and reduces the harms found in marijuana dealt from the street.

Never going to happen. Sorry. People will never learn how to use it responsibly.

That makes no sense at all. It is impossible to Overdose on Marijuana. In fact as some stoners know the more you smoke the less it affects you and in fact it's possible to smoke yourself sober.

Is it possible to overdose on something legal like Alcohol? Yes! In fact many people die every year due to alcohol poisoning. Is it possible to drink yourself sober? No not really, in fact the more you drink the less you are able to distinguish between reality and drunkeness.

Also please consider that legislation for the legalization or decriminalization of Marijuana has already passed in many states.
Live in Denver, CO? It's legal to own under an ounce. Just don't get caught by the feds because they may just want to jail you.

Marijuana legalization in the state of Colorado almost passed last election, in fact it was 40% for and 60% against. I must add that most that voted no are not completely educated on the truth of marijuana and just tend to believe what they were taught in school or heard from others, were confused by the wording of the bill, or thought that the bill need to be better worded. Marijuana is actually something that has medicinal value and for some a drug that can cure what many other "legal" drugs can't, from pain to depression to many other things.

It's also just a $100 fine in all other parts of Colorado for possession of under an ounce.

Yes marijuana is on its way to legalization.

The only thing keeping it from being legal?

Textile industry. It's so much easier to use hemp for clothing, building supplies, and much more that it would put many corporations out of business.
Don't think the Industry has it's hands in it? Think again, look at the reason Marijuana was banned in the first place... nonsense.

Here's for the movement, it will happen!

Forgetting the hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars saved by taking criminals convicted on charges of marijuana possession, use or sale of, consider how much of an economic boon this would create.

Basically, with a swirl of a pen and the drop of a gavel, you create a market consisting of millions of Americans for private companies to capitalize on. Imagine the economic benefits. And, because of this privatization, the drug becomes standardized and reduces the harms found in marijuana dealt from the street.

Also an excellent point. Regulate it and tax the hell out of it. The government does the same with tobacco.

Also an excellent point. Regulate it and tax the hell out of it. The government does the same with tobacco.

I would find it hilarious if the Ad Council ran Anti-Cannibus ads after its legalization.

It's almost the same as being granted a tax stimulus whilst seeing banking ads on television pleading for you to save money.

Again, I support reforming the justice system. Preaching to choir. I think there are more important things to worry about than fixing the pot laws. Let's start with the major focus of spending in Washington, like all the bs entitlement programs. Let's cut the pork before we cut the drug-busting.

Drug-busting = pork.

I would find it hilarious if the Ad Council ran Anti-Cannibus ads after its legalization.

It's almost the same as being granted a tax stimulus whilst seeing banking ads on television pleading for you to save money.

I could almost guarantee that they would(lol).

This was back in July, check the byline. Bills like this surface now and then (like the cats trying to get legalization on the ballot in California to make it part of our constitution) but generally they don't go anywhere. Until the potheads and sympathizers become 'that kind' of issue voter, the non-fringe (the not Kucinich, not Paul) senators are not going to be 'soft' on drugs, and seriously, do you think Bush would not veto it?

This is not to say I don't want it, or don't think it should happen, but I can't get excited at every attempt. Good for trying, it's going to take a few shots, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Now's not going to be the time. I think I looked this bill up a few weeks ago and it had been referred to some committee and nothing had happened since.

Junkies like crack and meth. Pot isn't any worse than alcohol. In fact people drive SLOWER when they smoke pot. Which helps saves gas! Perhaps Obama will put it in with his inflate tires to save gas campaign?

Lulz.

It should be the "Change Yer Air Filter" campaign. It saves a lot more gas and a lot more people are more likely to leave their air filter clogged, rather than notice their tires are 2 psi under inflated.

This was back in July, check the byline.

Hmm less than a week ago. This is pretty recent! I don't get your point.

i suppose we could hope the unimaginable happens and this actually passes. the money that will be saved from decriminalizing this relatively harmless drug... wow.

but its not like our government is going to be rational or anything... so back to the hoping.


*clicks heals together*

Hmm less than a week ago. This is pretty recent! I don't get your point.

The point is that I live in the future, where July was a long time ago. And in the future we don't have to bother reading articles that explain that the bill isn't likely to even get a vote until next year which would seem to make my point about Bush irrelevant, but there are some things about the future which would terrify you.

Also, in the future, we don't go back and correct asshatty posts, we just try our best to assure you that against all evidence, the post makes sense.


I'm very tired...

The point is that I live in the future, where July was a long time ago. And in the future we don't have to bother reading articles that explain that the bill isn't likely to even get a vote until next year which would seem to make my point about Bush irrelevant, but there are some things about the future which would terrify you.

Also, in the future, we don't go back and correct asshatty posts, we just try our best to assure you that against all evidence, the post makes sense.


I'm very tired...

i'm sure a timewarp would make it all better somehow... would be entertaining at least

Drug-busting = pork.

No, no, you're confused. It's not the money we're spending on finding, sentencing and jailing pot smokers that's porking up the deficit, it's all those damn student loans and NEA grants.

Which do you think is easier to get for youngsters...beer or pot? Teenagers have a much easier time getting pot than they do beer. Figure out why.

No, beer is easier.

YES! Finally! Woo! *Does a dance* The Federal government might FINALLY begin to do something SENSIBLE!

No, beer is easier.

Meh both the same in my experiance. Seemingly the whole world and his dad smokes pot, it's easy to get a hold of, making it legal won't make it any easier.

if you make pot legal, thats good, its relatively harmless in comparison to other drugs, especially alcohol and cigerettes. But my personal preference would be to ban all three of them, we don't need them and they only create crime and harm people. Of course this won't ever happen, as people are too ingrained in their alcohol drinking smoking ways and they would rebel against any ban, but given a chance to start again, all three should be removed and it should be engrained in culture that drugs are bad.

At the moment if you want drugs, you can get them, however old you are. If pot is legalised and controlled by the government, they can reduce prices so much that it will put drug dealers out of business, and they can then regulate who they sell to, reducing the levels of pot amoungst young people. And as for my personal experience, i feel it would be easier for me to get pot than alcohol, if i didn't have an older brother who would but alcohol for me.

if you make pot legal, thats good, its relatively harmless in comparison to other drugs, especially alcohol and cigerettes. But my personal preference would be to ban all three of them, we don't need them and they only create crime and harm people. Of course this won't ever happen, as people are too ingrained in their alcohol drinking smoking ways and they would rebel against any ban, but given a chance to start again, all three should be removed and it should be engrained in culture that drugs are bad.

What about the tens of thousands of jobs? The amount of the economy they make up? How much do cigarette and alcohol companies make? How many people do they employ? I tell you, addicted people wouldn't rebel, but rather go underground, just like other drugs. In the end, the police would have another "War on Drugs" to take care of, and create a huge crime culture, worse than what we have now. So legalize everything, k?

if you make pot legal, thats good, its relatively harmless in comparison to other drugs, especially alcohol and cigerettes. But my personal preference would be to ban all three of them, we don't need them and they only create crime and harm people. Of course this won't ever happen, as people are too ingrained in their alcohol drinking smoking ways and they would rebel against any ban, but given a chance to start again, all three should be removed and it should be engrained in culture that drugs are bad.

At the moment if you want drugs, you can get them, however old you are. If pot is legalised and controlled by the government, they can reduce prices so much that it will put drug dealers out of business, and they can then regulate who they sell to, reducing the levels of pot amoungst young people. And as for my personal experience, i feel it would be easier for me to get pot than alcohol, if i didn't have an older brother who would but alcohol for me.

It is ingrained, mankind has always done drug, always. from the beer of the Egyptions, to the mushrooms piss of the Siberians. I don't suppose we shall ever be free of it.

Hmm.

Stupid stoners. Just go get drunk and smoke a pack of cigarettes. You feel better that way than stoned any day of the week.

What about the tens of thousands of jobs? The amount of the economy they make up? How much do cigarette and alcohol companies make? How many people do they employ? I tell you, addicted people wouldn't rebel, but rather go underground, just like other drugs. In the end, the police would have another "War on Drugs" to take care of, and create a huge crime culture, worse than what we have now. So legalize everything, k?

How about the billions wasted in medical bills for alcohol and smoking related injuries? The people who are afraid to go out at night because drunk people and running about the place and could hurt them? How about the thousands of police officers and officals whose time is wasted dealing with drunk people who have commited crimes?

Alcohol, drugs and smoking don't have an overall positive effect on society. It costs us billions every year to deal with it, money which could be used in much better ways.

And as for your point, you're just agreeing with me right? I know a ban wouldn't work, i said that. And going underground to get things illegally is rebeling, as rebeling is going against the rules, and that is against the rules, ergo it is rebeling.

How about the billions wasted in medical bills for alcohol and smoking related injuries? The people who are afraid to go out at night because drunk people and running about the place and could hurt them? How about the thousands of police officers and officals whose time is wasted dealing with drunk people who have commited crimes?

Alcohol, drugs and smoking don't have an overall positive effect on society. It costs us billions every year to deal with it, money which could be used in much better ways.

And as for your point, you're just agreeing with me right? I know a ban wouldn't work, i said that. And going underground to get things illegally is rebeling, as rebeling is going against the rules, and that is against the rules, ergo it is rebeling.

And I wonder how much our goverments make from tax on the legal drugs?

Alcohol, drugs and smoking don't have an overall positive effect on society. It costs us billions every year to deal with it, money which could be used in much better ways.


Are you kidding? Alcohol and drugs have been helping ugly guys get laid for hundreds of years. Its benefits are incalcuable.

Are you kidding? Alcohol and drugs have been helping ugly guys get laid for hundreds of years. Its benefits are incalcuable.

And ugly women.

do you think Bush would not veto it?

Even though he won't get the chance, I reckon he would sign a bill such as that. He really doesn't do vetoes, he's not up for election and he used to like teh drugs himself.

Again, I support reforming the justice system. Preaching to choir. I think there are more important things to worry about than fixing the pot laws. Let's start with the major focus of spending in Washington, like all the bs entitlement programs. Let's cut the pork before we cut the drug-busting.

Drug prohibition is pork for pigs. Police unions go ape shit whenever someone suggests ending or even slightly loosening drug prohibition. Why? Reducing the money wasted on the 'war on drugs' cuts budgets and reduces the number of cops needed. Let's legalize pot, tax it and invest the savings and new revenue into job creation.

PS: Trollgaard, alcohol is a less pleasant high then THC. Anyways, I can smoke as much weed as I like, too much alcohol will kill me. ;)

YES! Finally! Woo! *Does a dance* The Federal government might FINALLY begin to do something SENSIBLE!

Look at the bolded words and rethink what you just said.

PS: Trollgaard, alcohol is a less pleasant high then THC. Anyways, I can smoke as much weed as I like, too much alcohol will kill me.

As to the pleasantness of the high, I'd daresay that's a personal preference issue.

Hmm.

Stupid stoners. Just go get drunk and smoke a pack of cigarettes. You feel better that way than stoned any day of the week.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever experienced a nicotine hangover? It makes an alcohol hang over look like a pleasant walk in the park...And both together? I would not wish that on my worst enemy...Well maybe my worst enemy...

Anti-drug laws and bills simply play on the fears of the majority of the population that has never touched such substances. Almost every scientist and researcher would tell you that alcohol is a rather dangerous drug, much more so than marijuana, ecstasy, or even LSD.

Update: a one-day CNN online poll on 7/30 asked citizens if they support legalizing cannabis: 76% in favor, 24% against. On July 31, the Washington Examiner in DC ran an online poll, resulting in a similar spread: 75% in favor, 25% against.

This is perhaps the most intresting part of the entire article. Politicans are vote whores after all.

How about the billions wasted in medical bills for alcohol and smoking related injuries?
Not wasted, boosting the economy. Doctors get that money y'know.
The people who are afraid to go out at night because drunk people and running about the place and could hurt them?
Well, I can honestly say that's the most... Interesting thing I've heard today.
How about the thousands of police officers and officals whose time is wasted dealing with drunk people who have commited crimes?

Wrong, it gives them a JOB! *Gasp*

Alcohol, drugs and smoking don't have an overall positive effect on society. It costs us billions every year to deal with it, money which could be used in much better ways.

Only because the government is constantly trying to reduce said benefits. And once again, who gets that money? People who work in rehab clinics, and that sort of thing. SOMEBODY always gets paid whenever you spend money!

And as for your point, you're just agreeing with me right? I know a ban wouldn't work, i said that. And going underground to get things illegally is rebeling, as rebeling is going against the rules, and that is against the rules, ergo it is rebeling.
You're right, rebelling is against the rules, we shouldn't do it.
http://laura.moncur.org/wp-content/photos/obey.jpg

In fact, I remember one "King George" Telling us the same thing back in... 1774 I think?
Look at the bolded words and rethink what you just said.
You're right. I'm having a wonderful, if impossible, dream at the moment.

if you make pot legal, thats good, its relatively harmless in comparison to other drugs, especially alcohol and cigerettes. But my personal preference would be to ban all three of them, we don't need them and they only create crime and harm people.
There would be vastly more alcohol and tobacco related crime if they were illegal. You think people will just stop smoking and drinking because it's against the law? Would you rather the government regulate and tax these things, or organised crime bleed every penny they can from addicts?
Of course this won't ever happen, as people are too ingrained in their alcohol drinking smoking ways and they would rebel against any ban, but given a chance to start again, all three should be removed and it should be engrained in culture that drugs are bad.
Drugs are neither bad nor good, it depends on how they are used. Medicinal drugs have saved countless lives and alleviated the suffering of countless people and recreational drugs are, well, fun. Misuse any of them and chances are you'll end up dead.

At the moment if you want drugs, you can get them, however old you are. If pot is legalised and controlled by the government, they can reduce prices so much that it will put drug dealers out of business, and they can then regulate who they sell to, reducing the levels of pot amoungst young people. And as for my personal experience, i feel it would be easier for me to get pot than alcohol, if i didn't have an older brother who would but alcohol for me.

Since I'm 20 I can get as much alcohol as I can afford, but when I was younger I figure I could have gotten alcohol a bit easier. Though I was on pretty friendly terms with some small scale drug dealers.

I don't think you guys quite get how this works. Maybe in your countries, you don't pay taxes for healthcare and the police and that sort of thing, but where i come from, 40% of what i will earn goes straight to the government. They then spend all that as they need to, but they end up spending billions of it every year on helping alcoholics and drug addicts stay alive (who i would like to point out add nothing to the treasury).

So, if drug addicts and alcoholics didn't exist, not only would i have to pay less taxes because i wouldn't have to pay for their care, i would also have to pay less taxes because they would actually be adding to the treasury rather than taking it away. From that, its fairly easy to draw the conclusion that banning drugs and alcohol would save me (and every other average working person) money.

I don't think you guys quite get how this works. Maybe in your countries, you don't pay taxes for healthcare and the police and that sort of thing, but where i come from, 40% of what i will earn goes straight to the government. They then spend all that as they need to, but they end up spending billions of it every year on helping alcoholics and drug addicts stay alive (who i would like to point out add nothing to the treasury).

So, if drug addicts and alcoholics didn't exist, not only would i have to pay less taxes because i wouldn't have to pay for their care, i would also have to pay less taxes because they would actually be adding to the treasury rather than taking it away. From that, its fairly easy to draw the conclusion that banning drugs and alcohol would save me (and every other average working person) money.

I take it you're also in favor of banning trans fats, processed sugars, and other food items with no nutritional value? No fat people and you pay less taxes.

I don't think you guys quite get how this works. Maybe in your countries, you don't pay taxes for healthcare and the police and that sort of thing, but where i come from, 40% of what i will earn goes straight to the government. They then spend all that as they need to, but they end up spending billions of it every year on helping alcoholics and drug addicts stay alive (who i would like to point out add nothing to the treasury).
An unavoidable consequence of having a government funded healthcare system is having a government that has a vested interest in the health of its populace, be they alcoholics, drug addicts or anything else.

And unless alcohol is tax free or they're stealing it then alcoholics are contributing to the treasury, at least until they're hospitalised. And unless they die in hospital or live off the proceeds of crime entirely(as in steal everything, thus avoiding any sales tax) then chances are they will contribute to the treasury once they get out of hospital.

It seems to me the sensible thing to do would be to tax alcohol and other such drugs based on the likelihood of such things leading to one needing medical treatment. But I don't know economics so there could be a huge flaw in this idea that I'm failing to see.

So, if drug addicts and alcoholics didn't exist, not only would i have to pay less taxes because i wouldn't have to pay for their care, i would also have to pay less taxes because they would actually be adding to the treasury rather than taking it away. From that, its fairly easy to draw the conclusion that banning drugs and alcohol would save me (and every other average working person) money.

All based on the assumption that your government would lower taxes if faced with lower costs in healthcare. You're also ignoring the fact that two huge industries have just ceased to exist. Many thousands of people are now unemployed. The government is no longer receiving millions in tax revenue.

The people who are afraid to go out at night because drunk people and running about the place and could hurt them?

I take it you don't go out after dark either, eh?

Taxes on things that are bad for you are a good thing. The taxes offset the costs of health care/police/ambulance/etc. Hence, the money isn't really being "wasted" right?

http://blog.norml.org/2008/07/30/congress-sets-sights-on-cannabis-prohibition-laws-major-press-conference-today-in-washington/

If this bill passes, federal penalties for the possesion of up to 100 grams of marijuana will be eliminated. Its like a dream come true.
Hopefully this bill will fail. Cannabis is not not addictive and it can fuck people up quite badly. Not cool.

Hopefully this bill will fail. Cannabis is not not addictive and it can fuck people up quite badly. Not cool.

*insert generic 'so you want to ban everything unhealthy' argument*

I'm lazy and can't be bothered typing the whole thing. You get the picture.

It's a strange thing, drugs. A lot of people are saying now that keeping drugs illegal will actually keep it a lot cheaper and possibly easier to get.

It's a strange thing, drugs. A lot of people are saying now that keeping drugs illegal will actually keep it a lot cheaper and possibly easier to get.

Is that so? *ponders*

*insert generic 'so you want to ban everything unhealthy' argument*
No, I want to ban things which fuck people up in the head, which can somewhat reasonably be banned. Banning alcohol is impossible, banning cannibis is also, realistically, never going to completely work, but legalising the stuff wouldn't really help anything much.
I'm lazy and can't be bothered typing the whole thing. You get the picture.
tl ; dr :tongue:

No, I want to ban things which fuck people up in the head, which can somewhat reasonably be banned. Banning alcohol is impossible, banning cannibis is also, realistically, never going to completely work, but legalising the stuff wouldn't really help anything much.
Why things that fuck people up in the head? It's their head to fuck up, you know.

tl ; dr :tongue:

:fluffle:

Why things that fuck people up in the head? It's their head to fuck up, you know.
Because they might well harm other people. As a previous user, I know how it doesn't make you fight people or anything like some people do when they drink alcohol, but it does make stupid ideas sound like a good plan, which can lead to other people getting hurt. This is a Bad Thing.

You know, I always kind of suspected this would happen at some point in my lifetime, but I certainly didn't expect it so soon. In a way I guess this recession might end up being a good thing, as long as it forces the federal government to review its more costly and ineffective policies, like the War on Drugs/Terror/Thought etc. I don't know whether or not it will actually pass (with congressional approval ratings being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't) but it sure looks to me like a step in the right direction.

I often find myself wondering how people actually manage to buy in to the "dope makes you do stupid things" brand of voodoo pharmacology, especially a "former user" such as Yootopia. I've been smoking dope for about six years now and I can't say as I've noticed that tendancy in myself or anyone else I have ever seen get high. The flaw in this thinking ("Dope can make you do stupid/dangerous things") is that it assumes potsmokers will do something other than sit on a couch and eat potato chips. I've never been stimulated to action by marijuana and I've never met anyone else who was either. The way some people talk makes it sound like you lose 50 IQ points when you take a hit; I can assure you this isn't the case. It might make you lazier, but I haven't noticed any particular degradation of intelligence in the users I've seen.

Wrong, it gives them a JOB! *Gasp*

we should keep marijuana and other drugs illegal because it helps keep police their jobs? that's like saying we should never have used machinery of any kind as it took away jobs from people who used to do it by hand. utter foolishness.

not like the police don't have plenty of other things to do anyway

It's a strange thing, drugs. A lot of people are saying now that keeping drugs illegal will actually keep it a lot cheaper and possibly easier to get.

yeah but if you get them now you can go to jail if you're caught with 'em. that kind of tilts the balance in favor of legalization to me.

Because they might well harm other people. As a previous user, I know how it doesn't make you fight people or anything like some people do when they drink alcohol, but it does make stupid ideas sound like a good plan, which can lead to other people getting hurt. This is a Bad Thing.

and alochol doesn't make you do stupid things? should we make that illegal as well?

and alochol doesn't make you do stupid things?
Doch.
should we make that illegal as well?
As I pointed out, I'm only in favour of banning things which might plausibly be taken out of the market. Alcohol, culturally a part of human life for about 6000 years, and obviously available because it grows on basically anything which is rotting is never going to be taken away from the market. Cannabis is not culturally a part of Western history and, although it grows very prevalently, could be seen as something bannable.

Because they might well harm other people. As a previous user, I know how it doesn't make you fight people or anything like some people do when they drink alcohol, but it does make stupid ideas sound like a good plan, which can lead to other people getting hurt. This is a Bad Thing.

Letting people drive can lead to people getting hurt. Letting people buy matches and lighters can lead to people getting hurt. Letting people play sports can lead to people getting hurt.

It's far too rational to pass.

Also, anyone voting for it would face stereotypically alarmist and traditionally hyperbolic and inaccurate negative campaign ads during their next election cycle.

Finally, to those trotting out the old tropes about weed, old trope is old. There's absolutely nothing you can say with any shred of proof that can accurately cast marijuana in a worse light than already-legal recreational drugs. I applaud your tenacity -- I just wish you used it where it mattered.

I often find myself wondering how people actually manage to buy in to the "dope makes you do stupid things" brand of voodoo pharmacology, especially a "former user" such as Yootopia.
Because for some people it does.
I've been smoking dope for about six years now and I can't say as I've noticed that tendancy in myself or anyone else I have ever seen get high. The flaw in this thinking ("Dope can make you do stupid/dangerous things") is that it assumes potsmokers will do something other than sit on a couch and eat potato chips. I've never been stimulated to action by marijuana and I've never met anyone else who was either.
Depends where, when and with what else you're taking it, I used to do it when I went out into the woods camping with friends mostly. If you're at home, mostly you kind of chill out and sit on the sofa watching terrible films, but often times in the woods we thought it would be a really good idea to climb some trees.

Most of the time it went fine and was just amusing, but sometimes we had instances of people falling off trees (again usually at about the third branch up, so they were just kind of surprised rather than with any real damage), but we once had my friend Joshua fall from about 16 feet up which broke his wrist and was generally pretty sad.
The way some people talk makes it sound like you lose 50 IQ points when you take a hit; I can assure you this isn't the case. It might make you lazier, but I haven't noticed any particular degradation of intelligence in the users I've seen.
Aye well it's different strokes for different folks. Much like alcohol, people get different reactions from it, especially (just as with all things) when they take too much. It can end up listening to Portishead and playing snap, or it can end in people acting in a pretty retarded way.

Letting people drive can lead to people getting hurt. Letting people buy matches and lighters can lead to people getting hurt. Letting people play sports can lead to people getting hurt.
Aye, quite true... what's your point here?

Driving = genuinely useful
Matches and lighters = genuinely useful
Playing sports = vaguely useful

Smoking cannabis = good fun, but not actually useful for much

As I pointed out, I'm only in favour of banning things which might plausibly be taken out of the market. Alcohol, culturally a part of human life for about 6000 years, and obviously available because it grows on basically anything which is rotting is never going to be taken away from the market. Cannabis is not culturally a part of Western history and, although it grows very prevalently, could be seen as something bannable.

That's some of the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen. Cannabis can't be removed from the market either, as decades of attempted prohibition have proven. I also find myself wondering why its cultural presence matters at all. The implication seems to be that the only people who should be allowed to smoke dope are the people who happen to live in areas where it grows naturally; otherwise it's not "part of the culture" and (by your logic) inimical to the citizens of another culture. Bollocks. The physiological properties of marijuana, and how it interacts with the human body, do not vary radically based on where one happens to live. Advocating banning it simply because its not "part of our culture" is utterly arbitrary and sets a dangerous precedent.

According to the WHO survey (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=table&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141&id=14269), almost 43% of Americans adults have smoked marijuana sometime in their life.

Because for some people it does.
Never met one.

Depends where, when and with what else you're taking it, I used to do it when I went out into the woods camping with friends mostly. If you're at home, mostly you kind of chill out and sit on the sofa watching terrible films, but often times in the woods we thought it would be a really good idea to climb some trees.
And sober people don't climb trees? You're killing me over here.

Most of the time it went fine and was just amusing, but sometimes we had instances of people falling off trees (again usually at about the third branch up, so they were just kind of surprised rather than with any real damage), but we once had my friend Joshua fall from about 16 feet up which broke his wrist and was generally pretty sad.
Irrelevant personal anecdote. I've smoked dope in the woods with friends dozens of times and I can't remember any tree climbing taking place. If I based my estimations of marijuana's "dangers" on this alone, I could only conclude that it's perfectly safe, which may or may not be as far from the truth as your claims. The real answer is probably somewhere in between.

Aye well it's different strokes for different folks. Much like alcohol, people get different reactions from it, especially (just as with all things) when they take too much. It can end up listening to Portishead and playing snap, or it can end in people acting in a pretty retarded way.
I haven't noticed a tremendous amount of different reactions from person to person, myself. That's not to say there might be some truth to this, but until some serious research is done, I'm inclined to dismiss arguments that you're any more likely to injure yourself while high versus being sober. Marijuana tends to make its users somewhat sedentary, which generally reduces the risk of injury. It's pretty hard to hurt yourself if you're just sitting on your ass watching TV. :p

That's some of the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen.
Yeah, that's me all over. I'm a bit ill and not exactly on top form to say the least.
Cannabis can't be removed from the market either, as decades of attempted prohibition have proven.
Yeah, the main problem with that is because education about cannabis has been really, really weak because any studies done on the stuff have been really, really weak, which is a shame.

"Cannabis is just bad" is sort of simplistic, especially when, outside of our own anecdotal evidence, there are very few studies which go very far each way. I'll admit that my own feelings towards the stuff have been affected quite a lot by one of my friends dropping out of college basically just so he could take drugs, which is a total waste and a real shame, whereas your views might have been affected quite a lot just by being with really chilled out people and just having a good time of it.
I also find myself wondering why its cultural presence matters at all. The implication seems to be that the only people who should be allowed to smoke dope are the people who happen to live in areas where it grows naturally; otherwise it's not "part of the culture" and (by your logic) inimical to the citizens of another culture. Bollocks. The physiological properties of marijuana, and how it interacts with the human body, do not vary radically based on where one happens to live. Advocating banning it simply because its not "part of our culture" is utterly arbitrary and sets a dangerous precedent.
The 'part of our culture' issue is more about how genuinely feasible it is to try to ban it. Alcohol - cannot be banned anywhere in the world with success. Because it has been a part of human culture and basically everyday life for the last several thousand years. Cannabis - relatively new to the western world, might be able to ban it because of this. In another hundred years, if laws get more relaxed around the world, that will not be true any more, for better or for worse.

Because for some people it does.

And some people can't handle alcohol or nicotine or even caffeine. What's your point?

Depends where, when and with what else you're taking it, I used to do it when I went out into the woods camping with friends mostly. If you're at home, mostly you kind of chill out and sit on the sofa watching terrible films, but often times in the woods we thought it would be a really good idea to climb some trees.

Most of the time it went fine and was just amusing, but sometimes we had instances of people falling off trees (again usually at about the third branch up, so they were just kind of surprised rather than with any real damage), but we once had my friend Joshua fall from about 16 feet up which broke his wrist and was generally pretty sad.

And this never happens to people not smoking weed, but drinking alcohol? Come on. It happens to sober people, fer cryin' out loud.

If you haven't got a decent argument against it and don't like it just because you don't like it, then just say that. That's one hell of a lot more valid than squatting over the thread and soft-serving us the same shit that's been debunked time and time again.

Aye well it's different strokes for different folks. Much like alcohol, people get different reactions from it, especially (just as with all things) when they take too much. It can end up listening to Portishead and playing snap, or it can end in people acting in a pretty retarded way.

Re-read the bolded part and re-evaluate your argument.

As I pointed out, I'm only in favour of banning things which might plausibly be taken out of the market. Alcohol, culturally a part of human life for about 6000 years, and obviously available because it grows on basically anything which is rotting is never going to be taken away from the market.

Alcohol "grows on anything which is rotting"? Uh, no -- sugar has to be part of the equation. That's such an inaccurate over-generalization as to be comical. It's believed that beer (the first deliberate alcoholic beverage) was discovered accidentally by the Sumerians and it was likely grain alcohol because grain was the first domesticated and stored crop and loaded with complex sugars that the fermentation bacteria like to process. So no, not on anything that is rotting. You can keep your Possum-carcass Porter to yourself, thanks.

Guess why they call marijuana "weed". IT GROWS EVERYWHERE. It doesn't need cultivation. It's been a part of humanity's primordial pharmacopoeia LONG before alcohol. I can't even say "nice try" to that line of tripe.

Cannabis is not culturally a part of Western history and, although it grows very prevalently, could be seen as something bannable.

What the hell are you talking about? Alcohol isn't Western, either, if you want to be technical. The Sumerians were living in Mesopotamia at the time it was discovered, again, by accident.

If you're telling me the Native people in North America weren't into any mind-altering substance their shamans discovered, you're crazy as well as horribly misinformed. Your ethnocentrism is typical, but especially appalling when you try to make incredibly bad justifications with it.

Never met one.
Ach, I can see where this is going. It going to turn into an anecdote-off between two people who don't actually know each other.

I have met someone like that, and he dropped out of his education to spend more time with drugs, this is a Bad Thing in my book.
And sober people don't climb trees? You're killing me over here.
Eh not in this wood, you wouldn't, all of the trees are pine trees, and unless you're feeling kinda numb, it's hardly worth bothering :tongue:
Irrelevant personal anecdote. I've smoked dope in the woods with friends dozens of times and I can't remember any tree climbing taking place. If I based my estimations of marijuana's "dangers" on this alone, I could only conclude that it's perfectly safe, which may or may not be as far from the truth as your claims. The real answer is probably somewhere in between.[QUOTE]
Again, I think this is a different strokes for different folks issue. Some people were (and I assume are) still always fine, others sometimes went a bit off.
[QUOTE]I haven't noticed a tremendous amount of different reactions from person to person, myself. That's not to say there might be some truth to this, but until some serious research is done, I'm inclined to dismiss arguments that you're any more likely to injure yourself while high versus being sober.
Yeah, I too would love more genuinely decent research. On the other hand, finding people for a survey of "how was cannabis for you?" probably wouldn't lead to very accurate results :tongue:

"Oh yeah I did it, one time we got SO HIGH etc."
"Uhu... did you actually ever do cannabis or are you just trying to sound cool?"
"Yes."
"Uhu..."
Marijuana tends to make its users somewhat sedentary, which generally reduces the risk of injury. It's pretty hard to hurt yourself if you're just sitting on your ass watching TV. :p
Tends to, but sometimes your batch or mood can be off and things can go a bit wrong.

Aye, quite true... what's your point here?

Driving = genuinely useful
Matches and lighters = genuinely useful
Playing sports = vaguely useful

Smoking cannabis = good fun, but not actually useful for much

hey, i really don't want to keep something banned just because its not useful, life would get pretty boring if we only did what was productive ;)

"Cannabis is just bad" is sort of simplistic, especially when, outside of our own anecdotal evidence, there are very few studies which go very far each way. I'll admit that my own feelings towards the stuff have been affected quite a lot by one of my friends dropping out of college basically just so he could take drugs, which is a total waste and a real shame, whereas your views might have been affected quite a lot just by being with really chilled out people and just having a good time of it.

Uh...your disappointment with your friend's choices is not marijuana's fault. Addiction is a human problem, not a problem with tools humans use or choose to abuse. Anything misused or overused can be dangerous. It is a waste and a shame, but the drug didn't choose for him. If he needed help and sought none, and none were around him concerned enough to help, again, not weed's fault. I empathize with your feelings about your friend, but alcohol has ruined many more lives than weed ever will. If the solution to alcohol abuse is not banning alcohol, how is the solution to abusing weed banning weed? And no, that doesn't include the same philosophy on vastly more inherently dangerous drugs like meth, before anyone tries that route. If weed immediately turned you into a strung-out, toothless, twitching psychopath, I'd be against it. It doesn't.

I have met someone like that, and he dropped out of his education to spend more time with drugs, this is a Bad Thing in my book.

Again, not the fault of the drug. You need to look at your friend, who couldn't handle the substance he chose to use. Why is it that "choices" are all fine and dandy when it comes to some conservatives castigating the poor and on other topics, but when it comes to "someone they know" who couldn't handle THEIR choices with regard to some behaviors, suddenly it's "the drug made him do it" or some other nonsense? We either have choices and consequences or we don't. Which is it?

Again, I think this is a different strokes for different folks issue. Some people were (and I assume are) still always fine, others sometimes went a bit off.

So why not leave it there instead of demanding that nobody be allowed to choose for themselves?

Tends to, but sometimes your batch or mood can be off and things can go a bit wrong.

Batch? Where are you getting your information? If someone has to "mix up a batch" of weed, they're pulling your schwantz, and possibly trying to poison you by adding another substance to your weed. There can be variations in THC content/potency, and slight variations on the non-THC elements of the plant from which the marijuana buds are harvested, but nothing even remotely akin to fucking up the mixture in a meth lab.

You're buying the okey-doke propaganda wholesale. I'd check that receipt if I were you.

hey, i really don't want to keep something banned just because its not useful, life would get pretty boring if we only did what was productive ;)

We sure as hell wouldn't be posting here, for starters.

I have met someone like that, and he dropped out of his education to spend more time with drugs, this is a Bad Thing in my book...

...Some people were (and I assume are) still always fine, others sometimes went a bit off.


How do these comments not also apply to MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft? There's plenty of people who drop out of college (or get kicked out for bad grades) to play WoW, and there's plenty who play the game responsibly and are just fine. (Case in point: I was put on academic probation because I got slightly addicted, while my roommate got near straight-As....we both played WoW heavily - and I have the easier major!)

Also, cannabis has some actual medicinal uses, unlike WoW. Not to mention the potential hemp industry.

Also, cannabis has some actual medicinal uses, unlike WoW. Not to mention the potential hemp industry.

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Prohibiting the massively useful industrial (read, virtually absent of THC) hemp plant because of a Puritanical obsession against anyone lighting up is a sad commentary in a nation that prides itself (or used to) on resourcefulness and ingenuity.

We sure as hell wouldn't be posting here, for starters.

hey if any of us can convince someone that the legalization of this is a good thing i'm going to believe that something was accomplished by being here


even if it was done during work hours :p

Aye, quite true... what's your point here?

Driving = genuinely useful
Matches and lighters = genuinely useful
Playing sports = vaguely useful

Smoking cannabis = good fun, but not actually useful for much

Being fun is a use.

hey if any of us can convince someone that the legalization of this is a good thing i'm going to believe that something was accomplished by being here


even if it was done during work hours :p

Even? Hell, especially!

"Man whats the matter with that cat there?"
"must be full of reefer"
"full of reefer?!"
"yea man"
"you mean that cats high?!"
"sailing"
"sailing"
"sailing lightly"
"get away from here
Man is that the reefer man?"
"thats the reefer man"
"I belive hes losing his mind"
"I think hes lost his mind!"

Oh have you ever met that funny reefer man reefer man
have you ever met that funny reefer man reefer man
If he said he swam to china, and he sell you south carolina
then you know your talkn to that reefer man
Have you ever met funny reefer man reefer man
Have you ever met funny reefer man reefer man
If he said he walks the ocean, any time he takes the notion
then you know your talkn to reefer man.

Have you ever met this funny reefer man reefer man
oh baby baby baby reefer man reefer man
If he trades you dimes for nickles
and calls watermellons pickles
then you know your talkn to that reefer man
Have you ever met funny reefer man reefer man
Have you ever met funny reefer man reefer man
If he takes a sudden mania
he'll want to give you pennsylvaina
oh you know your talking to the reefer man

Have you ever met funny reefer man reefer man
Have you ever met funny reefer man reefer man
If he said one sweet is funny
because he wont sell me atlantic
then you know your talkin to that reefer man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

It should be up to the states to decide.

I think the first test market should be in Las Vegas, NV - I'll be one of the first to open an Amsterdam style coffeeshop here.

Batch? Where are you getting your information? If someone has to "mix up a batch" of weed, they're pulling your schwantz, and possibly trying to poison you by adding another substance to your weed.

That's another thing, if weed was regulated by the government, you'd be getting pure plant. I've heard stories of people spraying weed with RAID or other chemicals to make it more potent. I don't know how true that is, never bothered to look it up, but I can believe it. Especially with that brown shit that comes from the major cities, that stuff just doesn't taste right.

Hopefully this bill will fail. Cannabis is not not addictive and it can fuck people up quite badly. Not cool.
...

We must be a F-ed up nation then.
Check this Yootopia. (http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/marijuana-use-usa.html)
we should keep marijuana and other drugs illegal because it helps keep police their jobs? that's like saying we should never have used machinery of any kind as it took away jobs from people who used to do it by hand. utter foolishness.

No, I said we should LEGALIZE IT! Don't assume.

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Prohibiting the massively useful industrial (read, virtually absent of THC) hemp plant because of a Puritanical obsession against anyone lighting up is a sad commentary in a nation that prides itself (or used to) on resourcefulness and ingenuity.

This arguement always mildly amused me. If the government say banned polyester instead of hemp we would never hear about the fabric again and not a soul would complain.

This arguement always mildly amused me. If the government say banned polyester instead of hemp we would never hear about the fabric again and not a soul would complain.
Good one!:tongue:

I don't see this ever passing.

Neither do I.

And some people can't handle alcohol or nicotine or even caffeine. What's your point?
My point, as has been stated before in this topic, is that unlike many chemicals which people can have an adverse reaction to, cannabis is not yet firmly ingrained into our popular culture.
And this never happens to people not smoking weed, but drinking alcohol?
Where did I say that?
Come on. It happens to sober people, fer cryin' out loud.
Aye, I'm sure it does.
If you haven't got a decent argument against it and don't like it just because you don't like it, then just say that. That's one hell of a lot more valid than squatting over the thread and soft-serving us the same shit that's been debunked time and time again.
Uhu... you've actually been 'debunking' my arguments by being bullish and putting up strawmen. Please don't, you're smarter than that.
Re-read the bolded part and re-evaluate your argument.
Uhu... my argument remains the same. Stop it while we might vaguely be able to. Tobacco and alcohol have been kicking about in the public eye for too long to even plausibly be banned. Cannabis, not really.
Alcohol "grows on anything which is rotting"? Uh, no -- sugar has to be part of the equation. That's such an inaccurate over-generalization as to be comical.
Aye, it's an over-generalisation, but I'm sure you knew what I meant.
It's believed that beer (the first deliberate alcoholic beverage) was discovered accidentally by the Sumerians and it was likely grain alcohol because grain was the first domesticated and stored crop and loaded with complex sugars that the fermentation bacteria like to process.
Aye, I don't think they actually went looking to make their crops mouldy and then somehow stick them in boiling water :tongue:
So no, not on anything that is rotting. You can keep your Possum-carcass Porter to yourself, thanks.
Indeed.
Guess why they call marijuana "weed". IT GROWS EVERYWHERE. It doesn't need cultivation. It's been a part of humanity's primordial pharmacopoeia LONG before alcohol. I can't even say "nice try" to that line of tripe.
You can't try to tell me that the fact that it's there means that it's always in demand, though. Nettles are all over the fucking place too. Would rather not step on them.
What the hell are you talking about? Alcohol isn't Western, either, if you want to be technical.
The drinking thereof is very universal, though.
The Sumerians were living in Mesopotamia at the time it was discovered, again, by accident.
Yes...
If you're telling me the Native people in North America weren't into any mind-altering substance their shamans discovered, you're crazy as well as horribly misinformed. Your ethnocentrism is typical, but especially appalling when you try to make incredibly bad justifications with it.
Yes, I wasn't telling you that, though, was I?
Again, not the fault of the drug.
What, a psychoactive chemical obviously played no role in his addiction? Seriously?
You need to look at your friend, who couldn't handle the substance he chose to use.
Aye, and I have. He has an addictive kind of personality to quite a few things. And it's a great shame. But that doesn't mean that we can just let weed off criticism because of that.
Why is it that "choices" are all fine and dandy when it comes to some conservatives castigating the poor and on other topics, but when it comes to "someone they know" who couldn't handle THEIR choices with regard to some behaviors, suddenly it's "the drug made him do it" or some other nonsense? We either have choices and consequences or we don't. Which is it?
Valid question. As someone who isn't particularly conservative, I'd point out that the drug wasn't the only thing that made him do it, but it didn't help whatsoever, and that, aye, personal experiences do mean a lot. As I'm sure they do to your side of the argument.

As to having choices and consequences or not, the choice and consequence will always be there, as a banned substance or as a legal one, it's just that, in my opinion, governments shouldn't let people harm themselves and people around them.
So why not leave it there instead of demanding that nobody be allowed to choose for themselves?
Because I'm a bit of a fascist when it comes to people harming themselves. As someone who drinks too much and smokes a couple of packs a week, this makes me a hypocrite, but there we go, that's how it goes.
Batch? Where are you getting your information? If someone has to "mix up a batch" of weed, they're pulling your schwantz, and possibly trying to poison you by adding another substance to your weed. There can be variations in THC content/potency, and slight variations on the non-THC elements of the plant from which the marijuana buds are harvested, but nothing even remotely akin to fucking up the mixture in a meth lab.
Batch, delivery whatever you would call a bag of weed in the States, I wouldn't know. And aye, my dealer didn't 'mix up a batch', what I meant was what you refer to as variations in the potency. One batch might be weaker or stronger than another, depending on its point of origin.
How do these comments not also apply to MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft? There's plenty of people who drop out of college (or get kicked out for bad grades) to play WoW, and there's plenty who play the game responsibly and are just fine. (Case in point: I was put on academic probation because I got slightly addicted, while my roommate got near straight-As....we both played WoW heavily - and I have the easier major!)
Because those are already legal and cutting off the supply would cost ridiculous amounts to enforce. Obviously, I'd rather people took everything in moderation, but you can't really legislate on that. And yes, this brings up the obvious comeback of "ah but this is true of cannabis as well", but I'm far to tired to retype what my arguments are again, to people whose viewpoints on the matter are already fixed. So just look up a bit.
Also, cannabis has some actual medicinal uses, unlike WoW.
Aye, well if people are taking cannabis medicinally, that's fine. If people need cannabis for a medical condition, then it's perfectly acceptable for them to be given it. Why would I think otherwise?
Not to mention the potential hemp industry.
Aye, hemp is a useful material. What's your point here?

...

We must be a F-ed up nation then.
Check this Yootopia. (http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/marijuana-use-usa.html)
Aye, there's a difference between "can" and WILL THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER DO IT. Please don't create strawmen.

Aye, there's a difference between "can" and WILL THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER DO IT. Please don't create strawmen.

Alcohol can be addictive, and can really mess you up. Ban too?

Alcohol can be addictive, and can really mess you up. Ban too?
FOR FUCK'S FUCKING SAKES, READ MY OTHER POSTS ALSO, WHICH EXAMINE THIS. AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Calling it a night. Not really in the right mind to post.

FOR FUCK'S FUCKING SAKES, READ MY OTHER POSTS ALSO, WHICH EXAMINE THIS. AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Calling it a night. Not really in the right mind to post.

*reads* Sorry. But now I abhor your opinion on the matter even more.

You know, I always kind of suspected this would happen at some point in my lifetime, but I certainly didn't expect it so soon. In a way I guess this recession might end up being a good thing, as long as it forces the federal government to review its more costly and ineffective policies, like the War on Drugs/Terror/Thought etc. I don't know whether or not it will actually pass (with congressional approval ratings being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't) but it sure looks to me like a step in the right direction.

I often find myself wondering how people actually manage to buy in to the "dope makes you do stupid things" brand of voodoo pharmacology, especially a "former user" such as Yootopia. I've been smoking dope for about six years now and I can't say as I've noticed that tendancy in myself or anyone else I have ever seen get high. The flaw in this thinking ("Dope can make you do stupid/dangerous things") is that it assumes potsmokers will do something other than sit on a couch and eat potato chips. I've never been stimulated to action by marijuana and I've never met anyone else who was either. The way some people talk makes it sound like you lose 50 IQ points when you take a hit; I can assure you this isn't the case. It might make you lazier, but I haven't noticed any particular degradation of intelligence in the users I've seen.

Yeah i'd say this is generally true. I do know a few people that tend to be more reckless on weed though... but then again theyre pretty crazy when theyre not high anyways.

My point, as has been stated before in this topic, is that unlike many chemicals which people can have an adverse reaction to, cannabis is not yet firmly ingrained into our popular culture.

Do you live in Saudi Arabia or something? It certainly is firmly ingrained into our popular culture.


Uhu... my argument remains the same. Stop it while we might vaguely be able to. Tobacco and alcohol have been kicking about in the public eye for too long to even plausibly be banned. Cannabis, not really.

We are not at all, even vaguely, able to stop the illegal drug trade, especially in marijuana, without resorting to horribly inhumane measures as they do in Singapore, and even there, they can't completely eliminate it.


What, a psychoactive chemical obviously played no role in his addiction? Seriously?

Aye, and I have. He has an addictive kind of personality to quite a few things. And it's a great shame. But that doesn't mean that we can just let weed off criticism because of that.

Valid question. As someone who isn't particularly conservative, I'd point out that the drug wasn't the only thing that made him do it, but it didn't help whatsoever, and that, aye, personal experiences do mean a lot. As I'm sure they do to your side of the argument.

You might have some vague shred of an argument if your friend got addicted to it when it was legal. The fact is that weed being against the law did not help your friend not become addicted to it. People will get addicted to drugs regardless of their legality and probably in comparable numbers. Unless it can be demonstrated that legalization would cause an increase in negative consequences that is greater than the tremendous cost of enforcement of prohibition, you can't argue against it. Given the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people whose lives have been ruined by the government in the course of enforcing these laws, that would be a very difficult argument to make. I haven't even mentioned how prohibition is an egregious breach of the civil rights of those who can use drugs responsibly.


As to having choices and consequences or not, the choice and consequence will always be there, as a banned substance or as a legal one, it's just that, in my opinion, governments shouldn't let people harm themselves and people around them.

So governments should keep people from destroying their lives by preemptively destroying them for them?


Because I'm a bit of a fascist when it comes to people harming themselves. As someone who drinks too much and smokes a couple of packs a week, this makes me a hypocrite, but there we go, that's how it goes.

So you're a fascist and a hypocrite and you want us to respect your opinion.


Batch, delivery whatever you would call a bag of weed in the States, I wouldn't know. And aye, my dealer didn't 'mix up a batch', what I meant was what you refer to as variations in the potency. One batch might be weaker or stronger than another, depending on its point of origin.

Dank nugs never hurt nobody.


Because those are already legal and cutting off the supply would cost ridiculous amounts to enforce. Obviously, I'd rather people took everything in moderation, but you can't really legislate on that. And yes, this brings up the obvious comeback of "ah but this is true of cannabis as well", but I'm far to tired to retype what my arguments are again, to people whose viewpoints on the matter are already fixed. So just look up a bit.

Well that is one of the points we are trying to make, and I think it's quite clear to any informed person that your arguments against alcohol prohibition apply equally well to cannabis.


Aye, well if people are taking cannabis medicinally, that's fine. If people need cannabis for a medical condition, then it's perfectly acceptable for them to be given it. Why would I think otherwise?

Aye, hemp is a useful material. What's your point here?


Even if you are dead set against legalizing cannabis as a recreational drug, it's medicinal and other uses are undeniable. For certain types of pain it is the most effective remedy, and for people who have bad reactions to narcotic pain relievers it is an excellent substitute. The only side effects of cannabis are being high and the munchies.

And some people can't handle alcohol or nicotine or even caffeine. What's your point?

Or MMORPG's, or console games, or FOOD.

I have met someone like that, and he dropped out of his education to spend more time with drugs, this is a Bad Thing in my book.

If he'd dropped out to spend more time playing WOW (which does happen) would you be arguing for the banning of MMORPG's? I also notice you state he dropped out to spend more time with "drugs" in general. Was he using things other than weed? If so it seems disingenuous to blame the weed alone.