<!--quoteo(post=1615174:date=Mar 17 2007, 09:36 PM:name=Nil_IQ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nil_IQ @ Mar 17 2007, 09:36 PM) [snapback]1615174[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Quite honestly I think that every "illegal" substance should be legalised, because quite simply I don't think the government should have any right to tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own bodies on their own property, provided they arn't interfering with anyone else's right to do what they want.
Yes, I mean Crack, Heroin, anything. If you take heroin knowing full well what it does to people then you deserve whatever you get, but it should be your right to choose to do so. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not everything.
But I would agree that Marijuanna should be legal. Mainly because it's no worse than alcohol. And it's near impossible to overdose on Marijuanna. (unlike Alcohol)
On top of which, it'd go a long way toward clearing out our jail system. And lighten the load on our police forces. And the aforementioned anti-nausia medical benefits.
_
Main reason I'm against the other ones isn't because of the overdose potential. It's because of the heightened chances that you'd take somebody with you.
As I see it, "Your freedom to swing your arms around stops at my face"
<!--quoteo(post=1614576:date=Mar 15 2007, 08:33 AM:name=Nil_IQ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nil_IQ @ Mar 15 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]1614576[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The arguements for legalising Marijuana:
1 It would free up law enforcement to deal with *real* criminals
2 It could have a whole range of medical benefits
3 The government could tax it, resulting in more funds to spend on public services <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Kind of... I think it has to more to do with that it's not as interesting if it's legal and cheaper.
2. Why don't you list them then.
3. Definitely, that would be a very smart thing to do. Tax would also be and easy way to slowly bring to the market.
For the record though I don't smoke period. I've eaten a little marijuana, but for a guy who can take six beers in and hour and barely get buzzed it doesn't really affect me. I think I'm part elven. Kind of like Legolas, or something.
<!--quoteo(post=1615271:date=Mar 18 2007, 07:25 AM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 18 2007, 07:25 AM) [snapback]1615271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 1. Kind of... I think it has to more to do with that it's not as interesting if it's legal and cheaper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why do so many people drink alcohol? That's legal and "cheap". Or why do so many people visit Amsterdam each year?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the record though I don't smoke period. I've eaten a little marijuana, but for a guy who can take six beers in and hour and barely get buzzed it doesn't really affect me. I think I'm part elven. Kind of like Legolas, or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eating a little weed won't do anything to you, eating a <i>lot</i> will.
<!--quoteo(post=1615208:date=Mar 18 2007, 02:04 AM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(That_Annoying_Kid @ Mar 18 2007, 02:04 AM) [snapback]1615208[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]P.S LF, we have those same types of criminals, we call them "junkies" or "tweakers"... No one gets high with marijuana and then goes "OH CRAP I NEED TO ROB THE CORNER STORE SO I CAN GET MORE WEED" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but pot is, as far as I know, comparatively cheap. I was talking about harder, typically more expensive and more inebriating drugs like crack cocaine or methamphetamines.
The legalization of drugs basically comes down to practicality versus principle. I agree that in principle people should be able to put whatever they want in their bodies. But practically if EVERYTHING was made legal, you have to admit a lot of innocent people would die. A lot already die because alcohol is legal, why add to those numbers?
As for pot, its about on par with alcohol as far as danger of doing something stupid while on it. I could see that being legal but cocain and meth? Forget it.
Oh and back to the main thread. Anything that a doctor says is helping the patient (so long as its a real medical doctor, not some crackpot) should be legal for that patient.
<!--quoteo(post=1615218:date=Mar 17 2007, 09:05 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Mar 17 2007, 09:05 PM) [snapback]1615218[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Not everything.
But I would agree that Marijuanna should be legal. Mainly because it's no worse than alcohol. And it's near impossible to overdose on Marijuanna. (unlike Alcohol)
On top of which, it'd go a long way toward clearing out our jail system. And lighten the load on our police forces. And the aforementioned anti-nausia medical benefits.
_
Main reason I'm against the other ones isn't because of the overdose potential. It's because of the heightened chances that you'd take somebody with you.
As I see it, "Your freedom to swing your arms around stops at my face" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see your point, but then i'm not proposing that everything be legalised overnight... although I realise now that might be what it sounded like I was suggesting...
If everything were suddenly legalised tomorrow, it would be chaos. What would need to happen would be a gradual process, along with quite a considerable change in people's attitude towards drugs. Once drugs are no longer "cool", people won't feel the need to take copious amounts of them, particularly if they've been brought up in an environment where drugs are freely available and they've been well educated on what effects they can have.
Its the same with alcohol. Look at the difference in attitudes towards alcohol in, for example, the U.S or England vs France. When children are brought up in an environment where alcohol isn't such a taboo, they won't feel the need to drink huge quantities and get completely wrecked. Especially if their first experiences with alcohol were with their parents, in a controlled environment. In the U.S and U.K, a lot of children are brought up to think alcohol is evil, and so as soon as they are of drinking age (or before) they go out and get completely wasted.
I know that's probably a gross generalisation, but my point is that people's attitude towards a substance is more important than the effects of the substance itself, and THAT is what really needs to change if legalisation is ever going to work.
And don't go and drag Hollywood stereo types and stuff into this <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
We simply have the best drug policy, because of people who help and regulate drug use and help drug addicts(victims). This is done in protective environments instead of it being controlled by the criminal underground/dealers... Also this legalization of some drugs, take away the iron grip the criminal circuit has on it. gottah love other countries looking down on this system, but its a proven concept and works pretty damn well...
But this has been years in development and simply can't be introduced instantly in other countries, there have to be people who control this situation. Otherwise it would be out of control and simply dangerous.
----------
And the subject of this thread is just saddening... If it is illegal, go ahead and prosecute the woman, I dare ya (aimed at the judges). I bet they won't because it's bad PR, hmm. Two faced sons of ######es, thats what they are...
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
LF, junkies come from crack cocaine, or herioin. and Tweakers are slang for meth addicts. Those are the kinds of drugs that make people want to rob corner stores.
Weed is relatively cheap, compared to the other drugs
umm i dunno what this discussion is about anymore but ill give a statement anyways: weed is good, alcohol is good, cigarettes... cigarettes is the stuff that gets you through the day.. how did that song go again?
Never mind, got to legalize it And don't criticize it Legalize it, yeah, yeah And I will advertise it
<!--quoteo(post=1615557:date=Mar 19 2007, 09:20 AM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(That_Annoying_Kid @ Mar 19 2007, 09:20 AM) [snapback]1615557[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> LF, junkies come from crack cocaine, or herioin. and Tweakers are slang for meth addicts. Those are the kinds of drugs that make people want to rob corner stores.
Weed is relatively cheap, compared to the other drugs <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that what I just said?
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
Thank you guys for indulging in this discussion in such a civilized and agreeable manner. US foreign policy isn't the only thing worth discussing (and it's barely worth discussing anymore... more like "what else can happen before 2008?"), am I right?
Anyway... I have personally decided not to smoke weed again for some time (possibly a couple months) both to stay safe from a positive urinalysis and because I simply had the best time ever on Sunday. I felt like my legs were reverse-joined like a velociraptor, and like my upper body was suspended on puppet strings. I got to sleep at 3 AM and didn't come down until noon (while I was at work, no less).
Maybe when I am old and financially stable, I can move to the Netherlands or some other nice peaceful place where they don't bother old men about their indulgences. What I'm about to say here definitely depends on the situation... but I really think that our government needs to quit trying to force social trends like abstinence, "saying no" to weed, etc. Human beings possess a natural predilection towards fulfilling personal needs. We only live once. There are many other first-world countries who live just as (and often more) civilly than we do here in the US. Less alcoholism despite (and likely because) of a lower drinking age, less automotive deaths due to more comprehensive driving instruction and qualification, etc. Things like advocating teen abstinence and saying no to weed, at heart, boil down to bureaucratic pandering. Our country is so damn inefficient at making positive changes because once a new president is in the hot seat, his administration is so busy bending over backwards to please his party connections, industry supporters, and improving his public image, that he will always settle for (and thereby devote money to) useless "reforms" and "campaigns" against things as paltry as teen sex and marijuana, when the real problems that are so much more difficult to attack, continue unabated... I can't even begin to imagine when the next "real" president will step up, a man who will decisively attack and destroy our country's worst problems in the face of big industry, in the face of party convictions, in the face of public opinion. And I hate to think how quickly he'll be assassinated.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
I must admit I haven't read every single post from the beginning, usually meaning that I don't post. Sorry about the exception this time.
As a student I really should be using citations, but because of the limits of my access to scientific journals and resources on drugs and Marijuana, and my <b>unlimited</b> laziness, I have to rely on anecdotal evidence and loose recollections from memory. (Again, I apologize)
I just like to point out what dangers there are with marijuana compared to alcohol and tobacco, and what they mean.<ul><li>Alcohol does fairly little harm in small amounts at the time. The kidneys take a beating after prolonged use, or worse, after large short-time intake. The point is, if you avoid becoming an alcoholic and you don't overdo getting drunk, you should be okay. </li><li>Tobacco is bad, specifics not needed for my use. :)</li><li>Marijuana, from what I've read from sources with unknown reliability, seems to be much safer than tobacco in several ways. Compared to tobacco, it's fairly harmless to the lungs, and in several other ways do less physiological damage than tobacco, at least outside of the brain.</li><li>But Marijuana does pose a risk from psychological health, doesn't it? My father is a M.D., even though his specialty doesn't involve drugs, he has several patients with trauma supposedly from smoking cannabis. One of them for example doesn't dare to move outside of his room into the living room and kitchen, from paranoia.</li></ul> It is possible that those with schizophrenia seek out cannabis, but paranoia does certainly appear in these patients <b>after</b> they start smoking. And paranoia has little to do with rational fears of procecution. Besides, the place where my parents live, there's not that great of a chance for being caught smoking marijuana.
Now I'm not arguing for or against the ban on cannabis, though I believe from a public health perspective there's likely to be just as or stronger reason to ban alcohol and tobacco than cannabis. But for or against, it's better to be certain about any health effects.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
What you're describing is a real but very limited occurence. Over 1/3 of the US population over 12 years old has tried marijuana, and schizophrenia with any relation to marijuana is still schizophrenia. I hate to say it, but one overrules the other, and the guy was kinda screwed from the start. Know what I mean?
However, you should definitely reconsider your thoughts on how alcohol is consumed by the majority of the population. People get drunk. People almost <i>always</i> get drunk. I'm not sure where I could find the statistical information, but I'd definitely bet that like, 65% of adults between 18 and 40 usually drink to get somewhere between buzzed and drunk, rather than just have a beer or glass of wine next to dinner. And we have learned by now that it barely takes buzzed to get into a car wreck. I guess I feel a little bit cynical saying that people are drinking just to get drunk, but when you think about it, it's usually true. God forbid we narrowed the survey group to adults between 18 and say, 25.
Well, I'm going to go on and hop into this drug debate as well, and support Kassinger's point with abstracted real-life experience. One of my family member's smoked pot for much of his late teens/early twenties, and only experienced drastic effects one random time which basically imbalanced the chemicals in his brain. He was thus, until he died recently, unable to be a productive member of society due to agoraphobia, panic attacks, susceptibility to depression and anxiety (not asocial agoraphobia either, just a paranoia and fear of being outside and in open areas, as he was actually quite talkative with strangers when waiting at a bus stop or something). I don't want to present the cliched DARE/Anti-drug activist "his life was wonderful before pot" argument, he had hard times and easy times, it was just one random time with the drug that screwed up the remainder of his life, and it's a possibility for many people (...especially considering the apparent susceptibility of many Americans to depression).
Now, I don't want to create the perception that I'm somehow against marijuana, I'm all for the legalization of it. I've seen the 'positive' or non degrading effects of the drug (I've seen numerous friends/roommates/aquaintances use it to no ill-effect). However, all of you people with the "there's no downside to marijauna - besides the munchies, lol!" kind of people need to wake up a bit more. The drug has very real consequences and has the potential to create unproductive members of society (not people so stoned they can't go to work, but people so screwed up in the head that they have a fear of routine and going to work). It's a psychological drug and not everyone is going to be immune to the potentially drastic and damaging effects. Although legalizing the drug may save money in drug war problems (although I was under the impression that it was cocaine and heroin that were the bigger problems), there's the very real problem of social support that that money may need to cover.
You may end up with billions saved in drug money, but billions spent on paying for welfare, unproductive members of society and lost wages. You could potentially end up with thousands of damaged families and psychologically defunct people.
Now, you may even go so far as to say "yea, but those people were potentially imbalanced/schizophrenic/deranged/etc. and the marijuana just brought it out" ( or
<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and schizophrenia with any relation to marijuana is still schizophrenia. I hate to say it, but one overrules the other, and the guy was kinda screwed from the start. Know what I mean?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ), but then you've got to remember that they may have been perfectly fine without smoking the drug. You start putting mind altering drugs into a population of 300 million and you're going to see a lot of people's brains aren't 'alright'. So it's only .1%? that's still 300,000 people.
Remember that anything that screws with your brain isn't just some harmless, recreational medium. Even TV has drastic effects on the way some people perceive the world (there's a study somewhere (and if someone knows exactly where, feel free to throw it up here)); that is, the more they watched TV the more they feared the outside world (and the preposed reasoning was because of violent media and TV shows focusing on robberies, murders and the like made those events seem more common than they really are). Nothing just 'is' - everything has an impact on you, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Of course, that doesn't mean we need to go and ban TV (or marijuana), but you've got to be careful how you allow the general (often ill-educated) population unrestricted access to things.
(But I do think that fear-mongering attempts at getting kids to abstain from drugs are a terrible way of getting kids to not do drugs. Present information, give benefits, give pitfalls, give side-effects (heck, if people want to use steroids after hearing "it may shrink your testicles" well, have at them) - and let people decide, because forcing "NO!" isn't going to result in anything useful)
I think the problem is that for the most part we don't really <i>know</i> what the side effects are. A friend of a friend of mine (credibility--) apparently had their first epileptic fit after smoking weed for the first time, and still suffers them from time to time.
That's the problem. We don't <i>know</i> what the stuff does, other than with short-term use its <i>usually</i> pretty harmless. If legalisation is ever going to happen we need to know more about the possible side-effect.
<!--quoteo(post=1614860:date=Mar 16 2007, 03:06 AM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Mar 16 2007, 03:06 AM) [snapback]1614860[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I always kinda wondered if the main reason hemp got banned was because originally when it was used to make paper in the American colonies.
Then you had people go "OMG we can make paper from trees. We no needs no stupid hemp to compete against. BAN TEH HEMP!"
And it's been illegal ever since <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
_
Well maybe not, but who knows, it may be that simple. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually TBH, the reason marijuana was made illegal in the first place was because hemp was going to take over the cotton industry, and farmers wanted to hold onto it.
[edit]I'm going to try and look into what I said about them going to open up research on marijuana for broader study, because with a broader range of knowledge we will know what side-effects may be possible. What makes it mess with your brain? You're brain actually has receptors specifically made to handle THC. Perhaps the people who are experiencing difficulties have a malfunctioning THC receptor? Possibilities need to be looked into...[/edit] [edit2]<a href="http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20070213/13feb20071558.html" target="_blank">http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswi...eb20071558.html</a> - similar article[/edit2]
<!--quoteo(post=1616959:date=Mar 26 2007, 01:40 AM:name=Sephiroth2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sephiroth2k @ Mar 26 2007, 01:40 AM) [snapback]1616959[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You're brain actually has receptors specifically made to handle THC. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well there it is then. evolution has placed those receptors there, therefore our species have been using cannabis for hundreds of thousands of ###### years
The brain may indeed react to THC, but who says that it does so specifically? The brain also reacts to a wide array of synthetic drugs, all if which are too new to have had any influence whatsoever on human evolution.
Unless the brain has "THC receptors" that fulfill no other purpose, I'm going to have to question this one for now. Any sources would of course be greatly appreciated.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
To the people comparing weed with alcohol: I completely agree! Alcohol should be banished as well, it's another mind-altering drug! Unfortunately, it's gonna be extremely hard to ban something like this that has such a rooted tradiition in most cultures.
<!--quoteo(post=1617323:date=Mar 27 2007, 04:58 PM:name=Epidemic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Epidemic @ Mar 27 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]1617323[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> To the people comparing weed with alcohol: I completely agree! Alcohol should be banished as well, it's another mind-altering drug! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Why would you want to take away people's right to drink if they want to? Would you take away people's right to play competitive sports because they might get hurt? Its the same principle. Accidents are a possible side-effect of playing sports, and addiction is a possible side effect of drinking alcohol, but with a bit of common sense and moderation both can be minimised.
My guess is he is making the point that you even made that if something like alcohol which is in basically all cases proven to be <i>more</i> dangerous than marijuana can be used in moderation safely, so should marijuana...
Dunno about MORE dangerous. Both get people killed in traffic accidents. Heavy alcohol use has long-term impact on your health, of course, but then again some people seem to be rendered permanently stupid by too much weed.
Dunno about MORE dangerous. Both get people killed in traffic accidents. Heavy alcohol use has long-term impact on your health, of course, but then again some people seem to be rendered permanently stupid by too much weed. So I'd say they're on the same level pretty much.
Permanently stupid by too much weed? That sounds like an extrapolation you yourself made.. There is NO possible way to overdose on marijuana, whereas with alcohol it is a known risk. Alcohol creates physical dependence, your body will actually need it. Marijuana only mental, you think you need Marijuana or your life will not be fun, or meaningful. The studies that say the percentage of accidents where the drivers had marijuana in their system.. is this necesarily saying that marijuana contributed to the accident? no. Marijuana stays in your body for 2 weeks to one month +. It however affects you for about 2-4+ hours... Is it possible they were tested towards the end of this period and weren't influenced by marijuana? My guess is they don't take this into account because they are <i>trying</i> to prove marijuana is harmful. I've personally (wouldn't call this me being proud but..) been high and drunk at seperate times. When you are high, it is easy to control your bodily actions, its mostly your comprehension, and attention that is affected, and I wouldnt say to a great degree either. When you drink, it is harder to control your body even though your perception of what occurs around you isn't affected as much. It is difficult to drink sometimes on account of empty stomach, drug interaction (painkillers, etc) tolerance level (having to limit how much you drink before getting sick) liver health etc. There are certain things to look out for with marijuana, such as history of chemical imbalance in the brain, or schizophrenia in your family history, but alcohol dependence is somewhat more widespread than these i would suspect. I may make plenty of assumptions, only perhaps because I don't feel like trawling the web to prove my point, but I ask you to argue reasons why alcohol is more dangerous, and how marijuana leads to stupidity for the rest of your life. Sorry for going off topic here....
and on topic.... I recently came across a story about a man who was sentenced to jail in canada for trafficking marijuana, and the judge said that the man be granted use of the drug while serving his sentence, because he suffers from multiple schlorosis(sp?). In many ways more than one i believe that canada is way ahead of the us in the health area, perhaps not as advanced, or as effective, but definitly in how they handle health care and cases such as this...
Not an <i>extrapolation</i> I made, but an <i>observation.</i> I have had several friends who have used marijuana heavily over periods of several years, and their mental proficience has definitely suffered. Of course, their mental deterioration can have completely different reasons (that's why I said seem), but I think I can be forgiven for drawing the conclusions that I do. People don't usually grow stupid for no reason at all.
There is of course the possibility that they were simply under constant influence, which would have the observed effects. The image of the drug as being harmless would certainly be a contributing factor in that case. But is a drug that renders you stupid really harmless?
Comments
Quite honestly I think that every "illegal" substance should be legalised, because quite simply I don't think the government should have any right to tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own bodies on their own property, provided they arn't interfering with anyone else's right to do what they want.
Yes, I mean Crack, Heroin, anything. If you take heroin knowing full well what it does to people then you deserve whatever you get, but it should be your right to choose to do so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not everything.
But I would agree that Marijuanna should be legal.
Mainly because it's no worse than alcohol.
And it's near impossible to overdose on Marijuanna. (unlike Alcohol)
On top of which, it'd go a long way toward clearing out our jail system.
And lighten the load on our police forces.
And the aforementioned anti-nausia medical benefits.
_
Main reason I'm against the other ones isn't because of the overdose potential.
It's because of the heightened chances that you'd take somebody with you.
As I see it, "Your freedom to swing your arms around stops at my face"
1 It would free up law enforcement to deal with *real* criminals
2 It could have a whole range of medical benefits
3 The government could tax it, resulting in more funds to spend on public services
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Kind of... I think it has to more to do with that it's not as interesting if it's legal and cheaper.
2. Why don't you list them then.
3. Definitely, that would be a very smart thing to do. Tax would also be and easy way to slowly bring to the market.
For the record though I don't smoke period. I've eaten a little marijuana, but for a guy who can take six beers in and hour and barely get buzzed it doesn't really affect me. I think I'm part elven. Kind of like Legolas, or something.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
1. Kind of... I think it has to more to do with that it's not as interesting if it's legal and cheaper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why do so many people drink alcohol? That's legal and "cheap". Or why do so many people visit Amsterdam each year?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the record though I don't smoke period. I've eaten a little marijuana, but for a guy who can take six beers in and hour and barely get buzzed it doesn't really affect me. I think I'm part elven. Kind of like Legolas, or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eating a little weed won't do anything to you, eating a <i>lot</i> will.
[...]P.S LF, we have those same types of criminals, we call them "junkies" or "tweakers"... No one gets high with marijuana and then goes "OH CRAP I NEED TO ROB THE CORNER STORE SO I CAN GET MORE WEED"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but pot is, as far as I know, comparatively cheap. I was talking about harder, typically more expensive and more inebriating drugs like crack cocaine or methamphetamines.
As for pot, its about on par with alcohol as far as danger of doing something stupid while on it. I could see that being legal but cocain and meth? Forget it.
Oh and back to the main thread. Anything that a doctor says is helping the patient (so long as its a real medical doctor, not some crackpot) should be legal for that patient.
Not everything.
But I would agree that Marijuanna should be legal.
Mainly because it's no worse than alcohol.
And it's near impossible to overdose on Marijuanna. (unlike Alcohol)
On top of which, it'd go a long way toward clearing out our jail system.
And lighten the load on our police forces.
And the aforementioned anti-nausia medical benefits.
_
Main reason I'm against the other ones isn't because of the overdose potential.
It's because of the heightened chances that you'd take somebody with you.
As I see it, "Your freedom to swing your arms around stops at my face"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see your point, but then i'm not proposing that everything be legalised overnight... although I realise now that might be what it sounded like I was suggesting...
If everything were suddenly legalised tomorrow, it would be chaos. What would need to happen would be a gradual process, along with quite a considerable change in people's attitude towards drugs. Once drugs are no longer "cool", people won't feel the need to take copious amounts of them, particularly if they've been brought up in an environment where drugs are freely available and they've been well educated on what effects they can have.
Its the same with alcohol. Look at the difference in attitudes towards alcohol in, for example, the U.S or England vs France. When children are brought up in an environment where alcohol isn't such a taboo, they won't feel the need to drink huge quantities and get completely wrecked. Especially if their first experiences with alcohol were with their parents, in a controlled environment. In the U.S and U.K, a lot of children are brought up to think alcohol is evil, and so as soon as they are of drinking age (or before) they go out and get completely wasted.
I know that's probably a gross generalisation, but my point is that people's attitude towards a substance is more important than the effects of the substance itself, and THAT is what really needs to change if legalisation is ever going to work.
<a href="http://www.drugsbeleid.nl/engels/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.drugsbeleid.nl/engels/index.html</a>
And don't go and drag Hollywood stereo types and stuff into this <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
We simply have the best drug policy, because of people who help and regulate drug use and help drug addicts(victims). This is done in protective environments instead of it being controlled by the criminal underground/dealers... Also this legalization of some drugs, take away the iron grip the criminal circuit has on it. gottah love other countries looking down on this system, but its a proven concept and works pretty damn well...
But this has been years in development and simply can't be introduced instantly in other countries, there have to be people who control this situation. Otherwise it would be out of control and simply dangerous.
----------
And the subject of this thread is just saddening... If it is illegal, go ahead and prosecute the woman, I dare ya (aimed at the judges). I bet they won't because it's bad PR, hmm. Two faced sons of ######es, thats what they are...
Weed is relatively cheap, compared to the other drugs
Never mind, got to legalize it
And don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And I will advertise it
LF, junkies come from crack cocaine, or herioin. and Tweakers are slang for meth addicts. Those are the kinds of drugs that make people want to rob corner stores.
Weed is relatively cheap, compared to the other drugs
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't that what I just said?
Anyway... I have personally decided not to smoke weed again for some time (possibly a couple months) both to stay safe from a positive urinalysis and because I simply had the best time ever on Sunday. I felt like my legs were reverse-joined like a velociraptor, and like my upper body was suspended on puppet strings. I got to sleep at 3 AM and didn't come down until noon (while I was at work, no less).
Maybe when I am old and financially stable, I can move to the Netherlands or some other nice peaceful place where they don't bother old men about their indulgences. What I'm about to say here definitely depends on the situation... but I really think that our government needs to quit trying to force social trends like abstinence, "saying no" to weed, etc. Human beings possess a natural predilection towards fulfilling personal needs. We only live once. There are many other first-world countries who live just as (and often more) civilly than we do here in the US. Less alcoholism despite (and likely because) of a lower drinking age, less automotive deaths due to more comprehensive driving instruction and qualification, etc. Things like advocating teen abstinence and saying no to weed, at heart, boil down to bureaucratic pandering. Our country is so damn inefficient at making positive changes because once a new president is in the hot seat, his administration is so busy bending over backwards to please his party connections, industry supporters, and improving his public image, that he will always settle for (and thereby devote money to) useless "reforms" and "campaigns" against things as paltry as teen sex and marijuana, when the real problems that are so much more difficult to attack, continue unabated... I can't even begin to imagine when the next "real" president will step up, a man who will decisively attack and destroy our country's worst problems in the face of big industry, in the face of party convictions, in the face of public opinion. And I hate to think how quickly he'll be assassinated.
As a student I really should be using citations, but because of the limits of my access to scientific journals and resources on drugs and Marijuana, and my <b>unlimited</b> laziness, I have to rely on anecdotal evidence and loose recollections from memory. (Again, I apologize)
I just like to point out what dangers there are with marijuana compared to alcohol and tobacco, and what they mean.<ul><li>Alcohol does fairly little harm in small amounts at the time. The kidneys take a beating after prolonged use, or worse, after large short-time intake. The point is, if you avoid becoming an alcoholic and you don't overdo getting drunk, you should be okay. </li><li>Tobacco is bad, specifics not needed for my use. :)</li><li>Marijuana, from what I've read from sources with unknown reliability, seems to be much safer than tobacco in several ways. Compared to tobacco, it's fairly harmless to the lungs, and in several other ways do less physiological damage than tobacco, at least outside of the brain.</li><li>But Marijuana does pose a risk from psychological health, doesn't it? My father is a M.D., even though his specialty doesn't involve drugs, he has several patients with trauma supposedly from smoking cannabis. One of them for example doesn't dare to move outside of his room into the living room and kitchen, from paranoia.</li></ul>
It is possible that those with schizophrenia seek out cannabis, but paranoia does certainly appear in these patients <b>after</b> they start smoking. And paranoia has little to do with rational fears of procecution. Besides, the place where my parents live, there's not that great of a chance for being caught smoking marijuana.
Now I'm not arguing for or against the ban on cannabis, though I believe from a public health perspective there's likely to be just as or stronger reason to ban alcohol and tobacco than cannabis. But for or against, it's better to be certain about any health effects.
However, you should definitely reconsider your thoughts on how alcohol is consumed by the majority of the population. People get drunk. People almost <i>always</i> get drunk. I'm not sure where I could find the statistical information, but I'd definitely bet that like, 65% of adults between 18 and 40 usually drink to get somewhere between buzzed and drunk, rather than just have a beer or glass of wine next to dinner. And we have learned by now that it barely takes buzzed to get into a car wreck. I guess I feel a little bit cynical saying that people are drinking just to get drunk, but when you think about it, it's usually true. God forbid we narrowed the survey group to adults between 18 and say, 25.
Now, I don't want to create the perception that I'm somehow against marijuana, I'm all for the legalization of it. I've seen the 'positive' or non degrading effects of the drug (I've seen numerous friends/roommates/aquaintances use it to no ill-effect). However, all of you people with the "there's no downside to marijauna - besides the munchies, lol!" kind of people need to wake up a bit more. The drug has very real consequences and has the potential to create unproductive members of society (not people so stoned they can't go to work, but people so screwed up in the head that they have a fear of routine and going to work). It's a psychological drug and not everyone is going to be immune to the potentially drastic and damaging effects. Although legalizing the drug may save money in drug war problems (although I was under the impression that it was cocaine and heroin that were the bigger problems), there's the very real problem of social support that that money may need to cover.
You may end up with billions saved in drug money, but billions spent on paying for welfare, unproductive members of society and lost wages. You could potentially end up with thousands of damaged families and psychologically defunct people.
Now, you may even go so far as to say "yea, but those people were potentially imbalanced/schizophrenic/deranged/etc. and the marijuana just brought it out" ( or
<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and schizophrenia with any relation to marijuana is still schizophrenia. I hate to say it, but one overrules the other, and the guy was kinda screwed from the start. Know what I mean?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ), but then you've got to remember that they may have been perfectly fine without smoking the drug. You start putting mind altering drugs into a population of 300 million and you're going to see a lot of people's brains aren't 'alright'. So it's only .1%? that's still 300,000 people.
Remember that anything that screws with your brain isn't just some harmless, recreational medium. Even TV has drastic effects on the way some people perceive the world (there's a study somewhere (and if someone knows exactly where, feel free to throw it up here)); that is, the more they watched TV the more they feared the outside world (and the preposed reasoning was because of violent media and TV shows focusing on robberies, murders and the like made those events seem more common than they really are). Nothing just 'is' - everything has an impact on you, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Of course, that doesn't mean we need to go and ban TV (or marijuana), but you've got to be careful how you allow the general (often ill-educated) population unrestricted access to things.
(But I do think that fear-mongering attempts at getting kids to abstain from drugs are a terrible way of getting kids to not do drugs. Present information, give benefits, give pitfalls, give side-effects (heck, if people want to use steroids after hearing "it may shrink your testicles" well, have at them) - and let people decide, because forcing "NO!" isn't going to result in anything useful)
That's the problem. We don't <i>know</i> what the stuff does, other than with short-term use its <i>usually</i> pretty harmless. If legalisation is ever going to happen we need to know more about the possible side-effect.
I always kinda wondered if the main reason hemp got banned was because originally when it was used to make paper in the American colonies.
Then you had people go "OMG we can make paper from trees. We no needs no stupid hemp to compete against. BAN TEH HEMP!"
And it's been illegal ever since <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
_
Well maybe not, but who knows, it may be that simple.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually TBH, the reason marijuana was made illegal in the first place was because hemp was going to take over the cotton industry, and farmers wanted to hold onto it.
[edit]I'm going to try and look into what I said about them going to open up research on marijuana for broader study, because with a broader range of knowledge we will know what side-effects may be possible. What makes it mess with your brain? You're brain actually has receptors specifically made to handle THC. Perhaps the people who are experiencing difficulties have a malfunctioning THC receptor? Possibilities need to be looked into...[/edit]
[edit2]<a href="http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20070213/13feb20071558.html" target="_blank">http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswi...eb20071558.html</a> - similar article[/edit2]
You're brain actually has receptors specifically made to handle THC.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well there it is then. evolution has placed those receptors there, therefore our species have been using cannabis for hundreds of thousands of ###### years
Unless the brain has "THC receptors" that fulfill no other purpose, I'm going to have to question this one for now. Any sources would of course be greatly appreciated.
To the people comparing weed with alcohol: I completely agree! Alcohol should be banished as well, it's another mind-altering drug!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Why would you want to take away people's right to drink if they want to? Would you take away people's right to play competitive sports because they might get hurt? Its the same principle. Accidents are a possible side-effect of playing sports, and addiction is a possible side effect of drinking alcohol, but with a bit of common sense and moderation both can be minimised.
Dunno about MORE dangerous. Both get people killed in traffic accidents. Heavy alcohol use has long-term impact on your health, of course, but then again some people seem to be rendered permanently stupid by too much weed. So I'd say they're on the same level pretty much.
and on topic....
I recently came across a story about a man who was sentenced to jail in canada for trafficking marijuana, and the judge said that the man be granted use of the drug while serving his sentence, because he suffers from multiple schlorosis(sp?). In many ways more than one i believe that canada is way ahead of the us in the health area, perhaps not as advanced, or as effective, but definitly in how they handle health care and cases such as this...
There is of course the possibility that they were simply under constant influence, which would have the observed effects. The image of the drug as being harmless would certainly be a contributing factor in that case. But is a drug that renders you stupid really harmless?