FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Legalization of Non Medicinal Marijuana Use





BlackroseDigitalDesigns
The 1920’s and 30’s was a generation of mistakes. Leadership and legislation were horribly treacherous and politicians found there hands in all the wrong pockets. We have fixed a number of those mistakes in the years past, civil rights, alcohol prohibition, and woman’s suffrage. Their remains a grievous error on the marred face of our history, the prohibition of marijuana. The legislation was led by corrupt politicians with their hands deep in the pockets of oil and paper textile companies, yet some still hold tightly to these unconstitutional laws. The legalization of marijuana would bring a number of benefits to society and government. From cheaper paper products and oil alternatives to increased tax revenue to lowered crime rates. Opponents to the legalization of marijuana quote a number of out-dated and biased studies reporting marijuana as a ‘gateway’ drug and a number of incorrect medical issues. These federal level laws are getting increasingly more unconstitutional as an ever increasing amount of states adopt medical marijuana laws, infringing on a states right to self government. Not to mention the ‘drug war’ has failed abysmally, doing nothing more than inflate the crime rate and the death rate. Marijuana use for both medicinal and recreational reasons has long been a part of our history and will remain to be for the years to come.

One of the biggest benefits that would come from the legalization of non medicinal marijuana use is the plethora of common products that would be economically and naturally sound. The hemp plant, which contains less than 1% of T.H.C. (Tetrahydrocannabinol), is used to strengthen concrete and other composite building materials, the fibers are also used in ropes and canvas. Hemp is a quick renewing resource for paper products that could ease our dependence on deforestation tactics for paper. Hemp seed oil can be used to directly fuel diesel engines, and is an opportunity for mass production of bio-diesel products. Also, it is noteworthy to mention that cannabis with its height and dense foliage is a perfect natural method for dealing with tough weeds; it would also provide an alternative for farmers to use in crop rotation.

<<continued>>
BlackroseDigitalDesigns
<<continued>>

Another tremendous benefit from the legalization of non medicinal marijuana would be the prospect of an entire taxable industry comparable to the tobacco and alcohol industries. 2006 saw over twenty billion dollars from those industries, the revenue from the taxation of cannabis would match if not surpass those earnings. Not to mention the jobs the introduction of an industry this size would create, and a use for our failing farming industry.

The supposed war on drugs has done more to break the unstable foundations of the American family than it has to strengthen it. Mandatory minimum sentences for relatively harmless crimes leave children parentless, often leading to delinquency and a predisposed hatred for establishment. The war on drugs has only increased the amount of drug related crimes. Every dealer arrest only opens a new job opportunity that is quickly filled. Marijuana prohibition is failing in ways shockingly similar to the attempted alcohol prohibition of 1920. Jack A. Cole, a former police officer said “Alcohol prohibition created organized crime providing criminal entrepreneurs with prospects of super-inflated profit motives which had never before existed. Drug prohibition has created international cartels and funded terrorist organizations next to which smugglers like Al Capone pale by comparison.”

Federal drug laws are an infringement to a states right to self government. Medical marijuana policies already in effect in a number of states, including Michigan, are blatantly broken by DEA and other federal organizations. The film documentary, “Super High Me” (2007) featuring comedian and marijuana activist, Doug Benson, reported over 775,000 marijuana possession arrests in 2007 a number of those related to legal dispensaries operating legally under the protection of Proposition 215.

<<continued>>
BlackroseDigitalDesigns
<<continued>>

The opposition to legalization of marijuana indicates outdated reports stating marijuana as a gateway drug. These reports are horribly misinformed, as more recent studies by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that prescription drugs like Vicodin, and Oxycodone are the first drug of choice among today’s youth. Matt Feehery, CEO of Memorial Hermann System's Prevention and Recovery Center said "Prescription medications are becoming the gateway drugs for adolescents, where it used to be alcohol and marijuana,"

Other arguments claim marijuana to be a highly addictive substance; the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified it as a Schedule 1 narcotic. Placing it among the ranks of powerful narcotics like heroin, MDMA (methylenedioxymeth-amphetamine), or ecstasy, and GHB, the ‘date rape’ drug. They presume it to be a stronger than substances like cocaine and PCP, which are only Schedule 2 narcotics. When in fact recent studies show marijuana and THC to be less addicting than caffeine, not to mention the nicotine and alcohol we peddle from corner stores.

Our American way of life was paved with the idea of hemp being the major cash crop, over cotton and tobacco. Many American leaders in the days of yore were highly involved in the growing and using of marijuana. During his presidency, Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter to head of Hoehner Harmonica Company, “Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica.” I say if it is good enough for Honest Abe, then it is good enough for America. The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp.

In closing I would like to reiterate my points; marijuana should be legalized for non medicinal uses for a number of reasons. The opening of new avenues for horticulture and business and the creation of thousands of jobs. The war on drugs has failed, its time to face the facts, and stop turning a blind eye to unconstitutional laws. Our financial history and future lie on a path paved with hemp, it may be the real economic stimulus we are looking for.

<<end>>
kody
I totally agree. Flin-flon manitoba agrees as well!
deanhills
BlackroseDigitalDesigns wrote:
Our American way of life was paved with the idea of hemp being the major cash crop, over cotton and tobacco. Many American leaders in the days of yore were highly involved in the growing and using of marijuana. During his presidency, Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter to head of Hoehner Harmonica Company, “Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica.” I say if it is good enough for Honest Abe, then it is good enough for America. The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp.

Well, once you have been successful in getting it all legalized, this would probably be a brilliant advertising campaign. Can just visualize Abraham Lincoln on his front porch smoking a pipe of hemp. Guess everyone needs a bit of hemp during these bad financial times as well. Will probably work better than tax cuts for some. Smile
BlackroseDigitalDesigns
Marijuana legalization is precisely the economic stimulus we need right now. Seriously can you imagine the amount of jobs an industry of this size would create, from saving farmers from failing harvests and having to sell their products less then they are worth. Processing and distribution, not to mention the amount of tax revenue our government would get. I look forward to the day I can go to the corner store and pick up a pack of Marlbroro "greens".
lagoon
Perhaps we could just have legal 'Marijuana bars' where users are supervised?
atul2242
BlackroseDigitalDesigns wrote:


Another tremendous benefit from the legalization of non medicinal marijuana would be the prospect of an entire taxable industry comparable to the tobacco and alcohol industries.... Not to mention the jobs the introduction of an industry this size would create, and a use for our failing farming industry.


Your research appears to be thorough, Please share some of your sources. Many of us here ( I live in the foothills of the Himalyas ) have been discussing growing cannabis for industrial purposes. In 1994 the Indian government under pressure from the US and the World bank crinalized the growing of marijuana under the Narcotics Act. This has resulted in the growth of harmful weeds in the area. .

BlackroseDigitalDesigns wrote:

The supposed war on drugs has done more to break the unstable foundations of the American family than it has to strengthen it. Mandatory minimum sentences for relatively harmless crimes leave children parentless, often leading to delinquency and a predisposed hatred for establishment. The war on drugs has only increased the amount of drug related crimes. ... . Drug prohibition has created international cartels and funded terrorist organizations next to which smugglers like Al Capone pale by comparison.”

Federal drug laws are an infringement to a states right to self government.



Agreed the criminalization of drugs commonly used in cultural and religious activities has helped the drug mafia who are in cathoots with the terrorists.
deanhills
atul2242 wrote:
drug mafia who are in cathoots with the terrorists.
that has to be some lethal partnership just imagine drug mafia with terrorists ... were you thinking of Afghanistan?
Libby
That would awesome. I've never smoked pot but it just bugs me how many people get thrown in jail for it!! Entire lives wasted because of a stupid law!
deanhills
Libby wrote:
That would awesome. I've never smoked pot but it just bugs me how many people get thrown in jail for it!! Entire lives wasted because of a stupid law!
Right! Just imagine all the savings in freeing up jail space Smile

PS: Good to have you back, missed your postings and good sense of humour ...
liljp617
I've asked a ton of people (admittedly mostly on the Internet) who oppose legalization: WHY IS IT ILLEGAL? Nobody has ever given me an answer outside of pure propaganda.

I can't wrap my head around marijuana still being illegal when it was only initially made illegal because of racism, lobbying, prejudice, propaganda, and yellow journalism. It never had anything to do with the actual drug... Confused
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I've asked a ton of people (admittedly mostly on the Internet) who oppose legalization: WHY IS IT ILLEGAL? Nobody has ever given me an answer outside of pure propaganda.

I can't wrap my head around marijuana still being illegal when it was only initially made illegal because of racism, lobbying, prejudice, propaganda, and yellow journalism. It never had anything to do with the actual drug... Confused

I'm not an expert on Marijuana, but it would appear it has a connotation, even if just psycological of a drug. It does effect your nervous system in that you get into a super relaxed state. Psychologically too because of the legislation it has also become something of a forbidden fruit. One wonders why alcohol is available without prescription though as possibly its effects can potentially be more harmful. Some people maintain that Marijuana is sort of a preparatory phase for harder drugs. A kind'a sample or first step to experimentation with something a bit more heavy.
Jinx
Hear! Hear! Legalize pot!!!! Down with prohibition!!!

The only reason it's even remotely a gateway drug is because it's illegal:
You tell a rebellious teenager that pot is this horrible addictive drug that will fry your brain and ruin your life, then that kid goes out and smokes some and realizes he was lied to - pot's not that bad. Then the kid thinks "Maybe they are lying about all those other drugs, too." So he goes out and tries heroine and dies of an overdose.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I've asked a ton of people (admittedly mostly on the Internet) who oppose legalization: WHY IS IT ILLEGAL? Nobody has ever given me an answer outside of pure propaganda.

I can't wrap my head around marijuana still being illegal when it was only initially made illegal because of racism, lobbying, prejudice, propaganda, and yellow journalism. It never had anything to do with the actual drug... Confused

I'm not an expert on Marijuana, but it would appear it has a connotation, even if just psycological of a drug. It does effect your nervous system in that you get into a super relaxed state. Psychologically too because of the legislation it has also become something of a forbidden fruit. One wonders why alcohol is available without prescription though as possibly its effects can potentially be more harmful. Some people maintain that Marijuana is sort of a preparatory phase for harder drugs. A kind'a sample or first step to experimentation with something a bit more heavy.


The gateway drug assertion is also propaganda in my eyes. Of the recent studies I've seen on whether or not marijuana a gateway drug, none of them have concluded it is. They've concluded the opposite or concluded there are much stronger "gateway factors" than marijuana. You also have places where marijuana is legal (or tolerated like parts of the Netherlands) where I don't think they have a ton of nutcase hard druggies running around solely because of marijuana (I could be wrong on this specific point).
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:

The gateway drug assertion is also propaganda in my eyes. Of the recent studies I've seen on whether or not marijuana a gateway drug, none of them have concluded it is. They've concluded the opposite or concluded there are much stronger "gateway factors" than marijuana. You also have places where marijuana is legal (or tolerated like parts of the Netherlands) where I don't think they have a ton of nutcase hard druggies running around solely because of marijuana (I could be wrong on this specific point).
I would imagine that availability of alcohol is probably a much stronger gateway to anything, or an enhancer if one can describe it that way. That together with smoking. Think the Netherlands is a bit of a different society. It also has a much smaller population than in the United States. I wonder whether the United States would be able to implement the same availability as the Netherlands has. But that is of course just speculation now. Bottomline is that the US has a serious drug problem, and perhaps the problem for it lies deeper than just the drugs themselves. Maybe children are bored, lonely, hopeless, desperate, depressed etc and these issues need to be addressed as a priority?
toasterintheoven
damn pity prop 19 didn't pass, more spending on law enforcement for something that's generating billions of what could've been taxable revenue, on the plus side though, I could totally see with more readily accessible marijuana, there would be some paradigm shift in the whole drug pyramid where cocaine may very likely become the new standard as the gateway drug among cool teenagers
Da Rossa
Congratualations California! You made the right decision.

Why the heck should a deadly drug be ever made legal? Yes, deadly, not the one you smoke a pot and fall back immediately, but you'll eventually die of cancer. (This is the time when supporters of the pot will rant on me, by making comparisons with cigarettes and stuff.)

Like every nonsense movement, they appeal to the attempt of demonstrating an imaginary and unlikely benefit: the taxation. Oh!

Why "Oh!"? Because the allowance would increase the usage. And the more people using it, the more RETARDED the entire society become, in an average approach. And you don't want that. This means a less productive state.

Not only because pot is inconvenient to your neighbour, and please don't say you give a s*** for them; you wouldn't want him to turn up his trash metal volume to bother you. Marijuana is a hassle for the entire society. Not to mention it works like an entrance to heavier drugs for the younger.
Afaceinthematrix
@Da Rossa: Your post is so full of nonsense that I am having trouble even trying to figure out where to begin. It was seriously so bad that it makes me feel like I'm in the philosophy forum trying to debate a Creationist. It really is that bad and I can tell that you know absolutely nothing about the issue, nothing about marijuana, and that you didn't even spend a second thinking about this. I will go through your "argument" line by line.

Da Rossa wrote:
Congratualations California! You made the right decision.


No. California did not. This isn't even an opinion it is almost a fact. Most moral systems are based off the golden rule "To do others as you want them to do to you" and restricting the freedom of people is not something that anyone wants. How would you like it if someone said, "Fast food is unhealthy so we'll make it illegal!" That is exactly what people are doing here. The main difference is that fast food is way worse for you than marijuana. More people have health problems related to obesity than from smoking trees. The fact of the matter is that banning something that hurts absolutely no one else is immoral and it's restricting freedom. Furthermore, if you do not believe in freedom then, in my opinion, you're an immoral scumbag.
Quote:

Why the heck should a deadly drug be ever made legal? Yes, deadly, not the one you smoke a pot and fall back immediately, but you'll eventually die of cancer. (This is the time when supporters of the pot will rant on me, by making comparisons with cigarettes and stuff.)


This is complete and utter nonsense. Would you spend three seconds checking for statistics? You cannot overdose on marijuana and an extremely small percentage of people who smoke it will get cancer. It is possible, but very unlikely. The main reason is that most people rarely smoke and so there lungs will not develop cancer. So you're just completely wrong here and you're a complete liar. In fact, long term marijuana in moderation is less harmful than long term alcohol in moderation. Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous (and addictive).
Quote:

Like every nonsense movement, they appeal to the attempt of demonstrating an imaginary and unlikely benefit: the taxation. Oh!


Imaginary benefit? Excuse my language but BULLSHIT! That is far from imaginary or unlikely and it would be a HUGE benefit to society. It would probably save about 20 billion per year. Plus, it would reduce crime (gangs are funded by drug dealing) and it would save our freedom. You cannot have freedom while this nonsensical "War" on Drugs is happening.
Quote:

Why "Oh!"? Because the allowance would increase the usage. And the more people using it, the more RETARDED the entire society become, in an average approach. And you don't want that. This means a less productive state.


If you would spend a minute doing research before yapping your mouth, you would see that prohibition worsens the situation. A few more people would use it, but most likely less people would use harder drugs. I, for one, would never have touched marijuana if it was legal. I've smoked it simply to thumb my nose at our oppressive and restrictive laws.
Quote:

Not only because pot is inconvenient to your neighbour, and please don't say you give a s*** for them; you wouldn't want him to turn up his trash metal volume to bother you. Marijuana is a hassle for the entire society. Not to mention it works like an entrance to heavier drugs for the younger.


You have GOT to be kidding! Is this actual satire now? Excuse me if this is satire and I'm getting all crazy. But that is just dishonest, ridiculous, and horribly wrong. How in the hell is my neighbor smoking trees in his OWN house any bother to me? Hell, I don't care if he's on his own porch smoking a bowl. It does absolutely nothing to bother me. What does bother me is the fact that my tax dollars are being wasted to arrest him while he's doing nothing to hurt me.

And please, the "gateway" theory is just a joke. Most people who believe that marijuana should be illegal don't even say that garbage anymore.
deanhills
Maybe Da Rossa has a point about lung cancer. I have just come across this article in the ScienceDaily indicating that those who smoke pot can get lung cancer twenty years earlier than tobacco smokers:
Quote:
Lead author Dr. Matthew Naughton says, "What is outstanding about this study is the relatively young ages of the lung disease patients, as well as the lack of abnormality on chest X-rays and lung functions in nearly half of the patients we tested."

He added, "Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers."

Patients who smoke marijuana inhale more and hold their breath four times longer than cigarette smokers. It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter – resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction.


I agree with your point about Fast Food, but then one wrong does not make another wrong right. Fast Food should be tackled as much as the illegal use of marijuana is, ie. there should be a ban on the ingredients that are used that are harmful to health. Marijuana should be carefully controlled. It has proven benefits for relieving pain - for medical reasons, but for me it is a danger for those who have addictive tendencies (not all people are as perfectly self-disciplined as you are). It could be an introduction to heavier drugs.

I think more should be done in the war against illegal drugs, because it IS a war from both sides. The drug trade is not only dispensing drugs to addicts, but actually recruiting addicts actively. The most worrisome part is the recruiting of potential addicts at schools where the most vulnerable are, i.e. especially when they get into their teens. Someone has to fight against those who are working on getting school children addicted. And yes, school children can get addicted to fast food too, and there should be an active campaign to work on that as well as alcohol.
Afaceinthematrix
NO!!! You just don't get it, do you? NOTHING should EVER be done about fast food. I brought up that point to show what it would be like if you restrict freedom. Two wrongs don't make a right but the only wrong we're dealing with here is having marijuana be illegal. I brought that up to make a point that just because something is harmful to the individual user does not mean that it should be illegal. Some people like that disgusting fast food crap and some people love to smoke weed. If they love it, then let them do it. There is absolutely no justification for telling a grown adult what they can or cannot put into their own body. You own your body and so if you want to smoke trees, then you should be able to.

There is absolutely no logical explanation for making weed illegal. It is far less dangerous than both alcohol and tobacco, it is less addictive than both, and there are less social consequences to making it legal. Plus, it's about freedom, man! FREEDOM! Freedom is something that I feel is worth fighting for and you cannot have freedom in a nanny-state where you can go to prison for many years for putting drugs into your own body, hiring a prostitute, gambling in certain areas, etc. There is simply no way to argue that point. If you believe in the War on Drugs, that prostitution should be illegal, that gambling should be illegal, etc. then you simply do NOT believe in freedom.

The only argument for keeping drugs illegal are the social consequences that it would cause to everyone else. But those are extremely minimal and the benefits would far outweigh them. Plus, you have to keep as much freedom is possible.


And then about the lung cancer...

If a tobacco smoker smokes a pack a day, then that is twenty cigarettes EVERY day which adds up to about six hundred a month whereas someone who smokes trees most likely smokes two or three times a month. So a marijuana smoker may smoke two to three hundred times less than a cigarette smoker. Most marijuana smokers are not chronic smokers. Since marijuana is, for the most part, non-addictive, it isn't something that many people use every day.

And even if it did cause cancer, then so what? Give me one reason why that should make it illegal? If I sit at my computer with my bong and smoke a few bowls while typing this, how will this hurt YOU or anyone else? Why would you honestly care if I sit here smoking trees? It will hurt no one else and so I'm under the mindset that if you're against me sitting here with my own life smoking then you're against my freedom and so you can go and screw yourself.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
NO!!! You just don't get it, do you?
I understood it perfectly the first time round Matrix. Maybe you did not get it that I got it? Smile I am in favour of rules that only make marijuana available for medical purposes as well as legislation that controls the fast food industry, so that fast food has quality ingredients in it. There are currently really poison in some of the fast food, that should not be allowed to be sold for human consumption.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
There is absolutely no logical explanation for making weed illegal.
I tried to give you my logical explanation, but obviously you are only interested in your own logical explanation. You may be a very self-disciplined person, but there are people, especially young people who are vulnerable and have addictive tendencies, and may use marijuana as a first stepping stone to drugs. Furthermore, there are proven studies that it is likely to increase your chances for lung cancer in comparison with smoking cigarettes, the latter of which is already hazardous for health (logically proven to be hazardous).

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
It is far less dangerous than both alcohol and tobacco,
Did you at all read my posting? As I quoted research that proved that smoking of marijuana is FAR MORE dangerous to health than tobacco. I suggest you really have a look at that article as it gives very good and LOGICAL reasons why smoking marijuana is more hazardous to health than smoking tobacco.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
I tried to give you my logical explanation, but obviously you are only interested in your own logical explanation. You may be a very self-disciplined person, but there are people, especially young people who are vulnerable and have addictive tendencies, and may use marijuana as a first stepping stone to drugs. Furthermore, there are proven studies that it is likely to increase your chances for lung cancer in comparison with smoking cigarettes, the latter of which is already hazardous for health (logically proven to be hazardous).


I'll start with this paragraph. No. There is simply no logical explanation for banning marijuana. First off, banning it isn't reducing it's use and you'd be a fool to think that it is. Similar to how prohibition of alcohol has failed all over the world in many countries that have tried it, prohibition of marijuana is failing. It is failing so bad that if I wanted to, I could easily go out and buy some marijuana off of someone and be back home in half an hour with a 99.999% chance of not getting caught or in any trouble whatsoever. Studies have shown that in some countries that have legalized it, use has actually fallen. Besides, marijuana is not very dangerous. You showed one article backing up your point. There are countless showing the opposite. Also, marijuana prohibition costs a ridiculous amount of money that's just wasted on something useless. So the logic is where?

Besides, you must be arrogant as hell to think that you're the supreme ruler and boss of the world and everyone in it. That's how all people who feel that drugs, fast food, prostitution, etc. should be illegal think. Who in the hell gave you the right to boss me around? I can just imagine you coming over while I'm sitting on my own property with a bong (and marijuana makes me hungry) and some fast food and you came waltzing over and say, "I am Deanhills, the supreme boss of everyone in this world. I demand you put down your bong and throw away your food because I am arbitrarily going put myself in charge of you, tell you what to do (even though it doesn't affect me), and not let you do something simply because I do not like it." Do you know what my response would be? I would tell you to "F*** off and mind your own business." Those would be my exact words. How would you like it if I came over to your house and told you to turn off your television because (in my opinion) television makes people stupid and I despise it (I really do)? I think television is horrible and so do you know what I do? I don't watch it! You can watch it all you want. I don't like it and so I don't watch it. So do what you like and quit bossing me around and telling me that just because you hate marijuana that I shouldn't have the right to do it whenever I want.

Jesus Christ, Deanhills, I hope you like metal because if you don't you'll probably try bossing me around and tell me to take off my Slayer t-shirt that I'm wearing and to turn off my music.

The primary purpose of any government is to protect the freedom of its people. Banning drugs is clearly taking away everyone's freedom and that's something I will NOT stand for. Also, honestly, why would you even care if I'm sitting here smoking my bong? How am I hurting you?




Quote:
I understood it perfectly the first time round Matrix. Maybe you did not get it that I got it? :) I am in favour of rules that only make marijuana available for medical purposes as well as legislation that controls the fast food industry, so that fast food has quality ingredients in it. There are currently really poison in some of the fast food, that should not be allowed to be sold for human consumption.


This was basically answered by the last part. If you don't like marijuana then you should not use it!!! Quit bossing me around and telling me that I can't do anything that you don't like just because you don't like it! Do you see me bossing you around and telling you to not watch television?

Quote:
Did you at all read my posting? As I quoted research that proved that smoking of marijuana is FAR MORE dangerous to health than tobacco. I suggest you really have a look at that article as it gives very good and LOGICAL reasons why smoking marijuana is more hazardous to health than smoking tobacco.


No. Smoking marijuana is far less dangerous than smoking tobacco. That's the general scientific consensus. As I showed, most marijuana smokers smoke hardly anything compared to tobacco smokers. But really... why does this even matter? If I want to pollute my lungs by sitting here with a bong, why shouldn't I be able to?
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I'll start with this paragraph. No. There is simply no logical explanation for banning marijuana.
Maybe we should get the facts straight here Matrix. I did not say ban marijuana. I said that marijuana is good for medical purposes, however that like any other drugs, that it should be prescribed, and also monitored. Not all people are as exceptional as you in being able to use marijuana without being affected by it. You do get people with addictive tendencies.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Besides, marijuana is not very dangerous. You showed one article backing up your point. There are countless showing the opposite. Also, marijuana prohibition costs a ridiculous amount of money that's just wasted on something useless. So the logic is where?
Marijuana in itself may not be dangerous, but the use of marijuana can be, especially when it is used to escape from life. The article gave very good reasons that appealed to my logical reason in saying that the practice of inhaling marijuana very slowly and trying to absorb all of it, in comparison with tobacco that is not inhaled in the same way, makes it more dangerous as a substance than tobacco. That makes sense to me.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Besides, you must be arrogant as hell to think that you're the supreme ruler and boss of the world and everyone in it. That's how all people who feel that drugs, fast food, prostitution, etc. should be illegal think. Who in the hell gave you the right to boss me around? I can just imagine you coming over while I'm sitting on my own property with a bong (and marijuana makes me hungry) and some fast food and you came waltzing over and say, "I am Deanhills, the supreme boss of everyone in this world. I demand you put down your bong and throw away your food because I am arbitrarily going put myself in charge of you, tell you what to do (even though it doesn't affect me), and not let you do something simply because I do not like it." Do you know what my response would be? I would tell you to "F*** off and mind your own business." Those would be my exact words. How would you like it if I came over to your house and told you to turn off your television because (in my opinion) television makes people stupid and I despise it (I really do)? I think television is horrible and so do you know what I do? I don't watch it! You can watch it all you want. I don't like it and so I don't watch it. So do what you like and quit bossing me around and telling me that just because you hate marijuana that I shouldn't have the right to do it whenever I want.

Jesus Christ, Deanhills, I hope you like metal because if you don't you'll probably try bossing me around and tell me to take off my Slayer t-shirt that I'm wearing and to turn off my music.

The primary purpose of any government is to protect the freedom of its people. Banning drugs is clearly taking away everyone's freedom and that's something I will NOT stand for. Also, honestly, why would you even care if I'm sitting here smoking my bong? How am I hurting you?
I don't understand where these rantings come from. This is a discussion Forum, and I'm sure I am as entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. I most certainly did not tell you what to do, I would not dream of doing that, so if you did come to the conclusion that I am prescribing to you personally, then you completely misinterpreted my postings. And once again, I did not say that marijuana be banned, for me it is a drug that should be prescribed for medicinal purposes by a medical practitioner, as any other drug.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Maybe we should get the facts straight here Matrix. I did not say ban marijuana. I said that marijuana is good for medical purposes, however that like any other drugs, that it should be prescribed, and also monitored. Not all people are as exceptional as you in being able to use marijuana without being affected by it. You do get people with addictive tendencies.


That is essentially banning marijuana because this entire article is about legalizing marijuana for recreational use. You cannot have freedom while drugs are illegal. Why don't you believe in freedom? I keep asking you all sorts of questions like these and you are ignoring them. Meanwhile, I am answering all of your points.

Quote:
Marijuana in itself may not be dangerous, but the use of marijuana can be, especially when it is used to escape from life. The article gave very good reasons that appealed to my logical reason in saying that the practice of inhaling marijuana very slowly and trying to absorb all of it, in comparison with tobacco that is not inhaled in the same way, makes it more dangerous as a substance than tobacco. That makes sense to me.


I could go and source hundreds of articles that would contradict your one article that has an obvious bias but I'm not going to do that. The reason why I will not do it is that not only is it a waste of my time, it is completely beside the point. The point isn't trying to figure out unhealthy marijuana is. The point is trying to convince you that we should have freedom in this world.

Quote:
I don't understand where these rantings come from. This is a discussion Forum, and I'm sure I am as entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. I most certainly did not tell you what to do, I would not dream of doing that, so if you did come to the conclusion that I am prescribing to you personally, then you completely misinterpreted my postings. And once again, I did not say that marijuana be banned, for me it is a drug that should be prescribed for medicinal purposes by a medical practitioner, as any other drug.


What??? You don't understand where these rantings are coming from? Did you read that paragraph? I told you exactly where my rantings came from! Of course you're entitled to your opinion but if your opinion is that you should be able to boss everyone around and tell them what they can or cannot do, on the basis that you don't like it, then I'll call it like it is and tell you that you're a bossy little jerk. You don't see me telling everybody that they shouldn't be able to watch television or play video games on the account that I think they're stupid, a waste of time, and bad for your health. So why do you think that I shouldn't legally be able to smoke trees just because you don't like them?
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
That is essentially banning marijuana because this entire article is about legalizing marijuana for recreational use. You cannot have freedom while drugs are illegal. Why don't you believe in freedom? I keep asking you all sorts of questions like these and you are ignoring them. Meanwhile, I am answering all of your points.
I do believe in freedom. But as much as drugs are not freely allowed to people, for their protection, and are prescribed by professionals, who have had a number of years of study so that they can be licensed to do so, marijuana is also a drug that I believe should be similarly protected. That is not only my opinion, but millions of others in the United States as well.

Here is an example of people in the United States who have a different opinion to yours and their reasons:
Radical Parenting - Parenting Advice Written by Kids

If their opinions are different to yours, does that mean they are biased, or just different?

Here is a good summary of the opposing opinions on both sides:
Quote:
For supporters, legalization would end what they term a hypocritical ban on a drug they claim is less harmful than alcohol. They claim it would cut law enforcement costs, raise tax revenue, and make it harder for children to get marijuana. Supporters include the California branch of the NAACP, state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Young Democrats, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the California Council of Churches, and several big labor unions.

For opponents, Prop. 19 represents a threat to public safety, violates federal law and drug-free workplace rules, and wouldn't generate much tax revenue at all. Critics include Mothers Against Drunk Driving, most law enforcement groups, all the state's major party candidates for governor and U.S. Senate, and the California League of Cities.
ABCNews
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
I do believe in freedom.


No you don't. You can sit here and lie about that all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you do not believe in freedom. You believe that everyone should conform to your own personal beliefs and that they do not have a right to do what they like, even if it hurts no one else. I am sitting here at my computer hurting nobody. I also just got a small amount of marijuana and I am thinking of smoking it. You believe that I should be arrested for no good reason! Here I am sitting here not hurting anyone. I am just trying to enjoy my life and you want to control me around. You're a bossy control freak that thinks everyone should do only what you agree with You never did answer my question, Deanhills. How would you like it if I walked into your house and told you that you're not allowed to watch television and then arrested you for doing it? That's essentially what you want to happen to me.

Quote:
But as much as drugs are not freely allowed to people, for their protection, and are prescribed by professionals, who have had a number of years of study so that they can be licensed to do so, marijuana is also a drug that I believe should be similarly protected. That is not only my opinion, but millions of others in the United States as well.


And??? Millions of people don't believe drugs should be legal. All that says is that millions of people are also immoral scumbags that do not believe in freedom. Do you know your logical fallacies? Ad populum?



Quote:
If their opinions are different to yours, does that mean they are biased, or just different?


This is so full of bullshit that I do not even know where to begin... I guess the beginning:

1) It is Perceived as Socially Addictive
And? So what?

2) Marijuana Could Be Addictive
It does not build a physical dependence. People smoke it because they like the effects. People who like the effects of an orgasm have sex or masturbate. So the point?

3) Medical Use is Not Accepted
So what? This isn't about medication! This is about people who want to smoke having the basic right to smoke!

4) Evidence Suggests It Is A Gateway Drug
That's a lie. And even if it was true, then so what! All other drugs need to be legal, too.

5) It is Associated With Laziness
Being lazy is not a crime. If I want to sit around relaxing on a Friday night then I have just as much right to do that as I do to not be lazy and go out and fix my car...

6) Marijuana is Not the Only Pain-Easing Drug
And? I'm not going to smoke trees to ease my non-existent pain. I want to get high!!!

7) Marijuana Can Have Negative Short-Term Side Effects
But these effects will only affect me so mind your own damn business and let me decide for myself. I am an adult, you know?

8) Marijuana Can Have Negative Long-Term Side Effects
Same

9) Marijuana Legality Increases the Possibility of Driving Under the Influence
And? Arrest people who drive stoned and leave the rest of us alone. If it's illegal, you're still going to have stoners driving. Besides, many people drive better when high because you're more cautious.

10) It Would Still Be Illegal For Teens
Ah yeah... And so are cigarettes and beer...

Quote:
Here is a good summary of the opposing opinions on both sides:
Quote:
For supporters, legalization would end what they term a hypocritical ban on a drug they claim is less harmful than alcohol. They claim it would cut law enforcement costs, raise tax revenue, and make it harder for children to get marijuana. Supporters include the California branch of the NAACP, state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Young Democrats, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the California Council of Churches, and several big labor unions.


I don't really care about that... I care about freedom. And it just so happens that my freedom is being taken away.

Quote:
For opponents, Prop. 19 represents a threat to public safety, violates federal law and drug-free workplace rules, and wouldn't generate much tax revenue at all. Critics include Mothers Against Drunk Driving, most law enforcement groups, all the state's major party candidates for governor and U.S. Senate, and the California League of Cities.
ABCNews


It wouldn't be a huge threat to public safety... It only violates federal laws because the federal laws are denying our freedom, and the last one is just a lie. It would generate tax revenue. But who cares? I WANT FREEDOM!

P.S. I don't actually have weed right now. I was using that as an example.
deanhills
How do you define freedom Matrix? Exactly what is it to you? If you now have the right to smoke marijuana everywhere, does that make you more free? Or is it simply a question of now making it easier to smoke marijuana? Even if it was against the law, you could still have smoked marijuana if you wanted to? The fact that there were rules against did not really make a difference, did they? You still acted according to your own wishes. Isn't that what real freedom means?

I'm also free to do anything I like. I have never liked smoking and have always found it a bit infantile and silly. If I did like smoking and also liked to smoke marijuana, I probably would still have voted for legislation to protect those who should not be smoking marijuana because they have addictive tendencies. The fact of a law does not take my personal freedom away however. Neither does it yours. Everyone is born free, and it is up to us to accept rules or reject rules. The rules don't take our freedom away, only our consent to a rule that we don't agree with takes our freedom away.
Bikerman
This is a naive, or disingenuous argument.
Freedom is the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.
If I put a gun to your head and tell you to open your safe, then according to your definition you are free to refuse, so you freely choose to give me the money. I beg to differ.
Da Rossa
My God, I'm late! @Afaceinthematrix

Quote:
@Da Rossa: Your post is so full of nonsense that I am having trouble even trying to figure out where to begin. It was seriously so bad that it makes me feel like I'm in the philosophy forum trying to debate a Creationist


But we haven't even begun debating!

Quote:
No. California did not. This isn't even an opinion it is almost a fact. Most moral systems are based off the golden rule "To do others as you want them to do to you"


This can't be as objective as you want. It's difficult to find someone, or even a group who's qualified to tell this is a fact from the objective reality instead of an opinion.

Quote:
and restricting the freedom of people is not something that anyone wants


This is not restriction of freedom. Specifically about that you're trying to find difficulties in something that's actually simple. So far you seem to be a libertarian, and as far as I know libertarianism is the doctrine of valuing liberty above all other goods. Liberty shall not be the end, but a mean. Liberty is supposed to be assumed instead of being the goal. Now bring this to the concrete case and think about other conducts that are currently tagged as bad. Pedophilia, for example. Now take marijuana and substitute, in your line of thinking, for "pedophilia". Well, there are actually some political parties (in the Netherlands in particular) that not only condone but advocate pedophilia (CFDP - Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party). Oh God, then lets make it legal! The adults shall have the right to screw the children, right? Even more, the children shall have the right to be screwed ("loved", as they say) by the adults.

Ok, but why this comparison? Not very difficult to point. Marijuana is unhealty, not only for the user itself, but for the people nearby. So far it's not a big deal, after all, everyone could go to their countryhouse to smoke far away. But people are not meant to live alone, and there are family and children near the smoker. The user gets distorted perception, laziness, higher BPM, confusion in thinking, even hallucinations, memory loss and lung cancer. The worst are the laziness and impaired thinking, because when this is calculated upon an entire society we see a significant loss of productive potential.

Quote:
How would you like it if someone said, "Fast food is unhealthy so we'll make it illegal!" That is exactly what people are doing here. The main difference is that fast food is way worse for you than marijuana


Little difference to fast food: if you bury in a kilo of bacon every morning, then you'll die quite fast. But happily no one can eat a lot of bacon, and a kilo is just a metaphor. But pot will damage people around, not only you. And I didn't even begin talking about social matters.

And you can't tell fast food is unhealthier for me than pot is. On what grounds would you say that? You could talk about bacon or raw meat, but not FF in general. In here, we can talk about an individual substance which has been exhaustively researched.

See, I wrote too much already. Next post I'll talk your other topics. Wink
Da Rossa
Lets continue...

Quote:
This is complete and utter nonsense. Would you spend three seconds checking for statistics? You cannot overdose on marijuana and an extremely small percentage of people who smoke it will get cancer. It is possible, but very unlikely. The main reason is that most people rarely smoke and so there lungs will not develop cancer. So you're just completely wrong here and you're a complete liar. In fact, long term marijuana in moderation is less harmful than long term alcohol in moderation. Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous (and addictive).


That's true, you can't OD on pot. But I remarked that: it's not like shoot-and-fall like other drugs such as cocaine and crack. But where are the decent statistics? I mean: not compiled by interested people. Help us both, because I trully can't begin to find the percentage of users aged 15-50 that will develop cancer in 2011 in the State of California.

Rarely smoke? Maybe. But imagine many people smoking rarely then think about the envinronment. (No, not the 'environment' according to Greenpeace). Also, drugs are good at first sight; there is a reason why people take them. What could it be besides pleasure? (calming and exciting effects are included). I'm not condemning the pleasure itself, I'm not a moralist, although some will say so.

Since we're getting acquainted, I'll pretend I'm not offended with
Quote:
So you're just completely wrong here and you're a complete liar


...like I had an agenda!

Quote:
In fact, long term marijuana in moderation is less harmful than long term alcohol in moderation. Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous (and addictive).


Please prove that. And I think this is not really absurd, alcohol and tobacco are bad too. But then, bring us some unbiased studies to ground that.


Quote:
Imaginary benefit? Excuse my language but BULLSHIT! That is far from imaginary or unlikely and it would be a HUGE benefit to society. It would probably save about 20 billion per year. Plus, it would reduce crime (gangs are funded by drug dealing) and it would save our freedom. You cannot have freedom while this nonsensical "War" on Drugs is happening.


Hey, you're getting into the speculation field. HUGE?? You're thinking monetarily. And a solely-money-oriented view is nothing besides convenient myopia.

Err... reduce crime? Are you SURE? Talking money again. This borders a communist logic. But this is another discussion. How can you tell the crime will reduce? There will be taxation, which is the very reason you're saying it would be good to make it legal, so there would be a revenue, right? Taxation is a natural obstacle to any business on Earth. So the gangs would keep selling in the dark for lower prices! Where will the user get more pot? Not in the grocery in the edge of the street.

No one can predict what could be the definitive scenario in the aftermath of legalisation. The gangs would simply change their activities to keep from breaking. They would flee to the robberies, kidnapping and assassination.

And, at last for now, you're looking at freedom from a narrow perspective. Some of the short-term effects of marijuana are loss of focus, tiredness, loss of memory and coordination. And who uses do for the joy, and at least about the increase of number of users we can agree (it's illogical to assume that the users are going to decrease after an eventual legalisation), we would have more people with these symptoms, and someone that users their freedom for that result can be thinking of staying free.
Bikerman
Let's have less heat and more light here please.
Firstly, with regard to lung cancer - the largest study available shows no correlation between pot smoking and lung cancer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

There is even evidence that it reduces tumours and may have an anti-cancer effect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

(Many people mix cannabis resin with tobacco to smoke and obviously there you get the normal risk from tobacco, and at least one study shows an increased risk of cancer in that scenario).

Secondly - with regard to potential risk vs alcohol and tobacco - that is a no brainer.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/visualising-the-guardian-datablog/

(Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA))

Finally, as regards reducing crime - that is also a no brainer. At the moment millions of people are breaking the law routinely. If marijuana was legal then the number of crimes committed would be reduced dramatically.

There are several other factors.
a) Because it is illegal much of the stuff sold (particularly resin) is highly adulterated - often with dangerous compounds.
b) Because it is illegal the organised crime rings that sell marijuana are likely also to be selling crack, speed and heroin. The buyer is therefore quite likely to come into contact with much 'harder' drugs when scoring his/her marijuana.
c) If it were legal then there would be no incentive for organised crime to sell it - it could be sold like tobacco and alcohol currently are, through retailers. Currently most of the profit goes to organised crime gangs who arrange the huge imports. One only has to look at US alcohol prohibition to see a parallel.
c) The 'war on drugs' was lost decades ago, but no government has the honesty to admit it.
Da Rossa
Nice article from the WP, but I found one two years newer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm
Time to discuss both of them.

Quote:
There is even evidence that it reduces tumours and may have an anti-cancer effect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm


Possible. Let's wait for the final conclusion then. Evidence is not a 'verdict'.

Quote:
(Many people mix cannabis resin with tobacco to smoke and obviously there you get the normal risk from tobacco, and at least one study shows an increased risk of cancer in that scenario).


Many do, many don't. Actually, here in Brazil 90% of the marijuana smokers I know don't smoke tobacco. But this is personal.. yet this has a little statístical value.

Quote:

Secondly - with regard to potential risk vs alcohol and tobacco - that is a no brainer.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/visualising-the-guardian-datablog/


That link points to another graphic:
Quote:


Where's tobacco?

Quote:
Finally, as regards reducing crime - that is also a no brainer. At the moment millions of people are breaking the law routinely. If marijuana was legal then the number of crimes committed would be reduced dramatically.


Sorry but I think you haven't read what I just posted about crime reduction. Saying something is no brainer, IMO, is to look at the problem with a I-wanna-smoke-my-pot-no-matter-what eye. Since this is both an economical, social and moral problem, with effects from the short to the longest term (not talking about the individual health issues), we can't, at all, pretend this is the only variable.

Another thing to point at:

Quote:
b) Because it is illegal the organised crime rings that sell marijuana are likely also to be selling crack, speed and heroin. The buyer is therefore quite likely to come into contact with much 'harder' drugs when scoring his/her marijuana.


As I said, the gangs would not stop their business. They would still be prefered because of taxes. The buyer will go for the cheaper thing.

Quote:
c) If it were legal then there would be no incentive for organised crime to sell it - it could be sold like tobacco and alcohol currently are, through retailers. Currently most of the profit goes to organised crime gangs who arrange the huge imports. One only has to look at US alcohol prohibition to see a parallel.


For until the last sentence, read above. About the last sentence: this is not a black-and-white comparison. You're assuming that all drugs are the same in social perspective. Drugs are different in effects, price, people who use, people who sell, where is produced, where is sold, who is interested, etc.

Quote:
c) The 'war on drugs' was lost decades ago, but no government has the honesty to admit it.


This is an endless war. There is no simple solution. Legalising would be a long shot. No one can figure out the world that would come from the new scene.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
Nice article from the WP, but I found one two years newer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm
Time to discuss both of them.
That is essentially meaningless. There is no indication of methodology, sample size, or even numbers affected, just a scare headline...
Quote:
Quote:
There is even evidence that it reduces tumours and may have an anti-cancer effect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Possible. Let's wait for the final conclusion then. Evidence is not a 'verdict'.
Did I say otherwise?

Quote:
Where's tobacco?
Tobacco is not included on that particular graphic but it isn't difficult to get the comparative statistics - google it.
Quote:
Sorry but I think you haven't read what I just posted about crime reduction. Saying something is no brainer, IMO, is to look at the problem with a I-wanna-smoke-my-pot-no-matter-what eye. Since this is both an economical, social and moral problem, with effects from the short to the longest term (not talking about the individual health issues), we can't, at all, pretend this is the only variable.

a) Where did I say I want to smoke pot?
b) You questioned whether legalisation would reduce crime. It would. It is, as I said, a no brainer.
Quote:
Quote:
b) Because it is illegal the organised crime rings that sell marijuana are likely also to be selling crack, speed and heroin. The buyer is therefore quite likely to come into contact with much 'harder' drugs when scoring his/her marijuana.
As I said, the gangs would not stop their business. They would still be prefered because of taxes. The buyer will go for the cheaper thing.
Nonsense. Firstly you are assuming that a prohibitively high duty rate would be set and secondly we have several comparators. How many organised crime gangs are selling their own brand of cigarettes? If marijuana could be grown legally then the cost would be very small. Even with significant duty it would be MUCH cheaper than the current prices charged on the street and there would not be sufficient profit to justify organised crime gangs running the risk.
Quote:
For until the last sentence, read above. About the last sentence: this is not a black-and-white comparison. You're assuming that all drugs are the same in social perspective. Drugs are different in effects, price, people who use, people who sell, where is produced, where is sold, who is interested, etc.
Platitudes are not arguments. I made no assumptions about 'all drugs are the same'. I pointed out that alcohol prohibition in the US provides a good model of what happens when organised crime is the only supplier of a drug which is widely used. After prohibition was ended organised crime got out of the alcohol business very quickly - despite the high duties.
Afaceinthematrix
The argument that the legalization of recreational drugs would reduce crime really is a no-brainer. Gangs are funded by dealing and so you legalize the drugs, you're reducing their income. Plus, in the United States, we have to worry about the Mexican drug cartels who are extremely violent. I was in Mexico recently (I occasionally go down there) and can tell you that things are bad. There are so many problems caused by the "War on Drugs" and so much violence that it causes that it makes me think very low on the people who want to keep drugs illegal even when they know about all of the innocent people that they're hurting. I've mentioned this before.

The fact that it would be economically good is also a no-brainer. The war on drugs costs billions of dollars each year and is completely ineffective. If drugs were taxed (and I'm talking about legalizing most illegal drugs) then those tax revenues could be used to provide rehabilitation centers.

But most importantly, as I keep saying, this is about personal freedom. If you believe that marijuana should be illegal and then claim to believe in freedom, then you're simply a liar or extremely deluded. Furthermore, as I keep saying, if you believe that marijuana should be illegal then you're a bossy little jerk because you're trying to control other people's lives by not allowing them to do something on the basis that you don't like the activity.

*Addressing Deanhills* Dude, you never answered my one single question that I kept asking you. I was only asking one, and so I want an answer. How would you like it if I busted into your house and told you that you're not allowed to watch television and that you should be arrested for using the television? Answer my one question!

I personally smoke weed. I smoke it very rarely because, for the most part, I don't like it. I hate the paranoia and anti-social feelings it gives me. But I do love some of the other effects (increased senses... food tastes better and color looks very vivid... things just illuminate out at you) and so very occasionally I smoke it. If you don't like it, then that's fine. Don't smoke it. But if you're going to try and stop me from doing it and make it illegal then you're just (as I keep putting it) a bossy little jerk that doesn't believe in freedom.

I was for the legalization of marijuana before I had ever tried it on the basis of personal freedom and I will always stand for freedom.

Quote:
Saying something is no brainer, IMO, is to look at the problem with a I-wanna-smoke-my-pot-no-matter-what eye.


How about a "I-want-my-personal-freedom-no-matter-what" eye? I will argue just as heavily about the legalizing of heroin and cocaine but would never, ever, ever, ever even consider touching that stuff. Marijuana (once every several months at the most), Salvia, and the occasional night of drinking are about as heavy as my drug use would ever get. But should other drugs be legal? Hell yeah!

Edit: Was re-reading this post and I found a grammar error.
bojanmilojkovic77
i agree with legalization!!!
c'tair
The idea that a group of people can "outlaw" one thing or another should be inspected. Various peoples have used drugs throughout the ages and we don't have one example of a society that was destroyed by drugs. However, we do have examples of societies destroyed by idleness, laziness, abundance (Rome?).

Drugs are only harmful in the context of our civilization. Only our culture makes drugs 'the forbidden fruit' that's so tasty and thus it increases the damage done by drugs, because from what I am aware of, drug users like Native Americans always used their hallucinogens very cautiously and they had a whole system of rules when and how to use a mind altering drug.

Our system? Look at people aged 14-24: "heeey maaan, I got so high at that party lololol and I drank so much that I vomited the whole night and ended up in the hospital for stomach flushing lololol, that was soooo keeeewwl amirite?!". The thing of binging on drugs has become "cool" and the only person/s to blame for that are the media people for creating such an image of youth and the youth itself for accepting it and propagating it amongst themselves.
deanhills
c'tair wrote:
Our system? Look at people aged 14-24: "heeey maaan, I got so high at that party lololol and I drank so much that I vomited the whole night and ended up in the hospital for stomach flushing lololol, that was soooo keeeewwl amirite?!". The thing of binging on drugs has become "cool" and the only person/s to blame for that are the media people for creating such an image of youth and the youth itself for accepting it and propagating it amongst themselves.
I partially agree. It is a media thing, also lots of it in movies and TV dramas. However, for me it is more of a total society sickness. Children are either bored or very stressed and can't cope with those properly. Would be wonderful if they could be given improved coping strategies like fun sports (as opposed to competitive sports). Or fun hobbies. Etc. Also, as far as I can understand, these drug pushers are doing it aggressively and are pushing their drugs on kids as the equivalent of almost "sweets". Some of the drug pushers start with giving it for free, and once addicted the kids become drug pushers themselves. So in that way the kids become victims, and perhaps Governments can't do anything to those drug pushers if there aren't any laws against drugs?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
and perhaps Governments can't do anything to those drug pushers if there aren't any laws against drugs?


Legalized doesn't have to be completely unregulated...
Do we have problems with youngsters getting victimized by alcohol-pushers?
No. Why? Because alcohol is regulated. You'll get a hefty fine for selling it without a license, and you'll lose your license if you sell (or give) it to underage kids.
If a similar system were applied to other drugs, most of this problem could be avoided.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
If a similar system were applied to other drugs, most of this problem could be avoided.
Are you sure ocalhoun. As are these two actually comparable? Youngsters find plenty of booze in their parents' cabinets, or can get access to it much easier than they can drugs. As far as I know drug peddling is illegal anyway. But there is such a power house of big money behind it, that one probably does require an equally powerful policing to combat it.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
If a similar system were applied to other drugs, most of this problem could be avoided.
Are you sure ocalhoun. As are these two actually comparable? Youngsters find plenty of booze in their parents' cabinets, or can get access to it much easier than they can drugs. As far as I know drug peddling is illegal anyway. But there is such a power house of big money behind it, that one probably does require an equally powerful policing to combat it.


I am sure that he is sure about this. Kids getting liquor from their parents happens far less than you would imagine because any responsible parent will notice when their bottle of vodka goes missing or turns into water and then the next week their fridge is emptied of all their beer.

Just ask any teenager in the U.S. and you'll find that getting a hold of marijuana is so much easier than other drugs. The reason is simple and logical: drug dealers do not ask for ID while bars and stores must. If marijuana was legalized, all business would be done in the store because it would essentially take all of the drug dealers' (which usually fund violent gangs) business.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
If a similar system were applied to other drugs, most of this problem could be avoided.
Are you sure ocalhoun. As are these two actually comparable? Youngsters find plenty of booze in their parents' cabinets, or can get access to it much easier than they can drugs. As far as I know drug peddling is illegal anyway. But there is such a power house of big money behind it, that one probably does require an equally powerful policing to combat it.

But do you find many illegal alcohol dealers prowling school grounds?
No. Why is that?
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Just ask any teenager in the U.S. and you'll find that getting a hold of marijuana is so much easier than other drugs. The reason is simple and logical: drug dealers do not ask for ID while bars and stores must. If marijuana was legalized, all business would be done in the store because it would essentially take all of the drug dealers' (which usually fund violent gangs) business.
That I can understand. But I thought we were talking about hard drugs, rather than marijuana.
ocalhoun wrote:
But do you find many illegal alcohol dealers prowling school grounds?
No. Why is that?
Drugs are much more profitable than alcohol?
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
That I can understand. But I thought we were talking about hard drugs, rather than marijuana.


This topic is about marijuana. But even if we are talking about harder drugs, then so what? What difference does it make? Freedom is freedom and you simply cannot have freedom while drugs are illegal. Furthermore, the logic and arguments for legalizing harder drugs are the same as they are for legalizing marijuana.


Quote:
ocalhoun wrote:
But do you find many illegal alcohol dealers prowling school grounds?
No. Why is that?
Drugs are much more profitable than alcohol?


No. No. No!!! We've gone over this hundreds of times. It's because alcohol is legal and so there's no use going to a drug dealer - which is illegal, expensive, dangerous, and funds gangs when I can go to the grocery store and pick up a case of beer or a bottle of vodka or really whatever I want that night.

I wouldn't go to a drug dealer for marijuana if I could go to the store and just buy it - it would be illogical (unless it was significantly cheaper from the dealer but that wouldn't happen). That's what we keep saying over and over and over again! Keeping drugs illegal funds violence while legalizing them would provide much needed services for drug abusers and save tax dollars!
watersoul
But similar to the 'duty free' checkout at an airport, there will always be dealers who are cheaper than the registered 'state approved' traders. There is already a market in the UK for tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol, smuggled in illegally with no taxes affecting the price, I admit I have used it myself on occasion. I honestly can't see the situation with pot/cannabis being any different if it was legalised here, unregulated traders will always undercut the mainstream competition.
Afaceinthematrix
watersoul wrote:
But similar to the 'duty free' checkout at an airport, there will always be dealers who are cheaper than the registered 'state approved' traders. There is already a market in the UK for tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol, smuggled in illegally with no taxes affecting the price, I admit I have used it myself on occasion. I honestly can't see the situation with pot/cannabis being any different if it was legalised here, unregulated traders will always undercut the mainstream competition.


As far as the illegal selling goes, it is very small. Most alcohol and tobacco is purchased from authorize dealers. I'm going to quote something Bikerman said above because I think it answers your point sufficiently and since I'm not misrepresenting his point, I am sure he won't mind.

Bikerman wrote:
Firstly you are assuming that a prohibitively high duty rate would be set and secondly we have several comparators. How many organised crime gangs are selling their own brand of cigarettes? If marijuana could be grown legally then the cost would be very small.


Who said that the tax on marijuana would have to be high? Secondly, marijuana is easy to grow. So you could essentially grow it yourself and not have to buy from anyone - let alone a drug dealer. I know people who would love to grow it but instead buy it from dealers because possession of marijuana is a small crime; getting caught growing it is major. I don't care if people buy it from authorized dealers or if they grow it themselves; either way they are taking away funding from the gangs that profit from selling the drugs. I would probably grow pot myself if it wasn't such a serious crime since it is easy to grow and would be very cheap compared to buying it.

Secondly, I've already handled this objection (I believe) in a post where you made this same point. My rebuttal was that even if people do still buy some of it illegally, there will still be some people who do buy it legally. And so even if you do not completely cut the market off for illegal pot, you are still, no matter how much, reducing it which is still a good thing. If gangs make $X million dollars this year from selling drugs and next year they make $(X-Y) million dollars (where y is positive), then they are still losing $Y million dollars and so I am still happy. Plus, we're protecting OUR freedom - which is the most important thing at stake here.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Plus, we're protecting OUR freedom - which is the most important thing at stake here.
So I take it you would want all drugs to be freely available, including those that presently can only be purchased after consultation with a doctor with a prescription?
watersoul
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Who said that the tax on marijuana would have to be high? Secondly, marijuana is easy to grow. So you could essentially grow it yourself and not have to buy from anyone - let alone a drug dealer. I know people who would love to grow it but instead buy it from dealers because possession of marijuana is a small crime; getting caught growing it is major. I don't care if people buy it from authorized dealers or if they grow it themselves; either way they are taking away funding from the gangs that profit from selling the drugs. I would probably grow pot myself if it wasn't such a serious crime since it is easy to grow and would be very cheap compared to buying it.

I do agree to be honest, one of my friends is in a relationship with a girl from the Czech Republic and there they are allowed to grow up to 3 pot plants (I believe) for personal use. I think thats totally reasonable and if the law was changed in the UK I'd probably have one or two on the go myself.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Secondly, I've already handled this objection (I believe) in a post where you made this same point. My rebuttal was that even if people do still buy some of it illegally, there will still be some people who do buy it legally. And so even if you do not completely cut the market off for illegal pot, you are still, no matter how much, reducing it which is still a good thing. If gangs make $X million dollars this year from selling drugs and next year they make $(X-Y) million dollars (where y is positive), then they are still losing $Y million dollars and so I am still happy. Plus, we're protecting OUR freedom - which is the most important thing at stake here.

I also get your point there, it will certainly reduce some profits for 'the gangs'.
Remember though, a lot of cannabis growing (certainly in my country) is more small scale groups of individuals and not what we imagine as organised gangs. Another friend of mine is about to finish a 3 year prison term for growing pot with the intention of supplying to others. He had about 20 plants in a converted room and apart from the illegality of his business, he was essentially just an average Joe offering a product. Yes he was a law breaker, but gangster, no.
I actually know a few people involved in 'grows' for profit but apart from the fact that the cultivation is illegal, they are all otherwise law abiding folk and I don't consider them as harmful to society. None of them sell to children for example, so as such I won't open my mouth and inform the authorities because I personally disagree with the law as well - adults should be free to make their own choices in life if it harms no-one else.

The law is certainly contradictory when alcohol and all it's damaging effects is legal, yet pot is not. I don't see much changing soon though, for whatever reason the powers that be continue to treat cannabis as an evil worse than alcohol so it remains illegal.
Strange how the government seem to be happy to miss out on the potential taxes from what is already a well established and easily accessible marketplace...with our current budget deficit it could be worth looking into! Laughing
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Plus, we're protecting OUR freedom - which is the most important thing at stake here.
So I take it you would want all drugs to be freely available, including those that presently can only be purchased after consultation with a doctor with a prescription?

I cant speak for Afaceinthematrix, but my ideal concept would be that, yes, they would all be freely available, though dangerous ones would be available only after consultation with a doctor about correct dosages, consequences of overdose, and long-term health hazards.
(Therefore giving all drugs the exact same treatment.)
Also, if the potential users were under 18, they would need parent/guardian permission, requiring the parent to go with the kid to the doctor, and/or give a signed, notarized permission form.
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
I cant speak for Afaceinthematrix, but my ideal concept would be that, yes, they would all be freely available, though dangerous ones would be available only after consultation with a doctor about correct dosages, consequences of overdose, and long-term health hazards.
(Therefore giving all drugs the exact same treatment.)
Also, if the potential users were under 18, they would need parent/guardian permission, requiring the parent to go with the kid to the doctor, and/or give a signed, notarized permission form.


My feelings are that I shouldn't have to go to a doctor for my heroin (hypothetical, I would never use that terrible drug). There is enough education out there already (especially in schools - which everyone in the U.S. must attend until a certain age and since I don't believe in giving/selling drugs to minors - then every buyer will have received the education at some point) and so I wouldn't want to have to go that extra barrier and expense. Furthermore, I wouldn't want the amount of drugs that I can take to be controlled by a doctor. However, if I want to be semi-responsible on my drug use, I would voluntarily visit a doctor to get a recommended safe dose for my body.

However, many people, like you, are for this type of drug legalization. Many people feel that the prescription is necessary. So this is my feeling on that: if legalizing freedom (drugs) comes at the simple expense of having to get a prescription, then let's do it! You can't always have things completely your way and so I am happy to make the trade. Let's legalize drugs and require prescriptions so that more of us are happy. Requiring prescriptions is a small price to pay for freedom and so I'll gladly accept that proposition.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

However, many people, like you, are for this type of drug legalization. Many people feel that the prescription is necessary. So this is my feeling on that: if legalizing freedom (drugs) comes at the simple expense of having to get a prescription, then let's do it! You can't always have things completely your way and so I am happy to make the trade. Let's legalize drugs and require prescriptions so that more of us are happy. Requiring prescriptions is a small price to pay for freedom and so I'll gladly accept that proposition.


Well, not requiring a prescription would be best, except for three factors;
A: To reduce the risk of overdose, especially for the more dangerous drugs.
B: To give a doctor the chance to say to an addict, "Hey, you don't look so good, would you like help getting off of this drug?"
C: Because today's prescription drugs would also be available the same way (like Valium or Morphine), and people are generally not educated about the dangers of those. (They have warning labels, of course, but how many people actually read them?)
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
C: Because today's prescription drugs would also be available the same way (like Valium or Morphine), and people are generally not educated about the dangers of those. (They have warning labels, of course, but how many people actually read them?)


I think that people aren't educated about those drugs simply because you need a prescription to receive them. When you get a prescription for those drugs, your doctor probably (and definitely should) talk to you about the dangers of the drug. So I think that D.A.R.E. officers and health teachers tend to just think that they can ignore those (for the most part) because doctors will handle those.

Of course the bad thing about this is that you cannot just get a prescription for Valium or something similar. You must have what the doctor feels is a legitimate reason for getting the drug. I think that any adult should be able to get whatever drug they feel like. I should be able to go to the doctor and say, "Write me a prescription for Valium - I'll be liable for my own body." Unfortunately, I cannot be liable for my own body - only a doctor can in that situation (just look at the Michael Jackson case).

Fortunately, some doctors in California write marijuana prescriptions to anyone who wants a card. This makes marijuana for recreational use already practically legal here. I'm just annoyed that it isn't officially legal because the tax dollars still aren't going where they're needed and we still don't officially have freedom.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I should be able to go to the doctor and say, "Write me a prescription for Valium - I'll be liable for my own body." Unfortunately, I cannot be liable for my own body - only a doctor can in that situation (just look at the Michael Jackson case).
But isn't that what doctors are doing anyway, and that does make it totally hypocritical to me. They are supposed to do a thorough investigation of your background of taking medication, including the state of your health and a thorough medical check up. Yet possibly because they are just too busy, they immediately grab a prescription pad before they have done an investigation. Not all doctors are doing what they are supposed to do BEFORE the prescription is written. A really good example is anti-biotics. It would be crucial, before the doctor starts to write a prescription for anti-biotics, to ask questions about the history of anti-biotics that the patient has taken. Also to provide the patient with very careful and exact instructions of how to take those anti-biotics, as of course if the anti-biotics is stopped short of the length of treatment that is needed, that would be a waste as well. Bottomline however, the medical profession is not always very responsible in prescribing drugs, so everyone should take full responsibility for themselves when they see a medical doctor, and make sure that they read all of the fine prints on the paperwork that comes with the drugs. I at one stage worked in a coroner's office when I was still a student and a young guy had died of a very standard prescription drug for acne. The paperwork said that the doctor should run tests after six months of the drug, the doctor however just kept prescribing the drug. Yet, that doctor did get off free, as of course the medical profession always stick together. I am quite cynical about medical doctors from that point of view. They have their uses, but the worst one can do is to go to them expecting them to take responsibility for our bodies. Preferably a person should go with a long list of symptoms they have carefully documented and come fully prepared to the appointment. And when they do, I can only imagine the doctor will prescribe to them almost automatically what they ask for.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
And when they do, I can only imagine the doctor will prescribe to them almost automatically what they ask for.

And often, the answer they give is to take drugs, despite the fact that other treatments would be better.
-This is partly the fault of prescription drug companies' amoral actions.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
And when they do, I can only imagine the doctor will prescribe to them almost automatically what they ask for.

And often, the answer they give is to take drugs, despite the fact that other treatments would be better.
-This is partly the fault of prescription drug companies' amoral actions.
Agreed. Also a check up on the diet and lifestyle of the patient. More and more doctors are checking up on this, but sometimes a lifestyle change, such as getting more sleep or eating foods that are more natural and high in fibre can solve the problem. Often too drugs that fix one problem may create another problem such as allergies. Particularly anti-biotics for example.
Afaceinthematrix
Oh my God! I cannot believe this. This is completely shocking.

Pat Robertson wrote:
We're locking up people that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they've got 10 years -- they've got mandatory sentences and these judges, they throw up their hand and say "What can we do? It's mandatory sentences." We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes, and that's one of 'em. I mean, I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong. But I just believe criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of just a few ounces of pot, and that kind of thing, I mean it's costing us a fortune, and it's ruining young people. The young people go into prisons, they go in as youths, and they come out as hardened criminals, and it's not a good thing.


Pat Robertson is actually for the legalization of marijuana? I am extremely impressed. Of course this still doesn't make up for all of the other terrible things he's said in the past (most of them homophobic or just plain distasteful) but it is still impressive.

This makes me happy because I think one huge reason that drugs are still illegal is that many people are way too socially conservative (well this is obvious) and many of these people tend to idol-worship Pat Robertson. So hopefully the news that he said this spreads around and people start to see reason.

At any rate, I feel better about my day just by reading this. Maybe this country is actually progressing towards having more freedom. And if the United States can legalize marijuana, then there is a decent chance that this may help other countries follow the same path towards freedom because the U.S. does have a decent amount of influence on some countries...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Oh my God! I cannot believe this. This is completely shocking.

Pat Robertson wrote:
We're locking up people that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they've got 10 years -- they've got mandatory sentences and these judges, they throw up their hand and say "What can we do? It's mandatory sentences." We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes, and that's one of 'em. I mean, I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong. But I just believe criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of just a few ounces of pot, and that kind of thing, I mean it's costing us a fortune, and it's ruining young people. The young people go into prisons, they go in as youths, and they come out as hardened criminals, and it's not a good thing.


Pat Robertson is actually for the legalization of marijuana? I am extremely impressed. Of course this still doesn't make up for all of the other terrible things he's said in the past (most of them homophobic or just plain distasteful) but it is still impressive.
I was more interested in the jail sentence of 10 years ..... wow! Bondings has just posted a story about a serious jewel thief who after ripping off millions of dollars only got a jail sentence of 8 years and then only served 2 of those. Strange justice .... or should we qualify it by saying there is really no fairness in justice?
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Oh my God! I cannot believe this. This is completely shocking.

Pat Robertson wrote:
We're locking up people that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they've got 10 years -- they've got mandatory sentences and these judges, they throw up their hand and say "What can we do? It's mandatory sentences." We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes, and that's one of 'em. I mean, I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong. But I just believe criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of just a few ounces of pot, and that kind of thing, I mean it's costing us a fortune, and it's ruining young people. The young people go into prisons, they go in as youths, and they come out as hardened criminals, and it's not a good thing.


Pat Robertson is actually for the legalization of marijuana? I am extremely impressed. Of course this still doesn't make up for all of the other terrible things he's said in the past (most of them homophobic or just plain distasteful) but it is still impressive.
I was more interested in the jail sentence of 10 years ..... wow! Bondings has just posted a story about a serious jewel thief who after ripping off millions of dollars only got a jail sentence of 8 years and then only served 2 of those. Strange justice .... or should we qualify it by saying there is really no fairness in justice?


There have been cases where people have gone to jail in the U.S. for that long for marijuana but those cases are few and far between. Most of the time you don't even go to trial - you just get a $100 fine.

You need to be extremely careful in believing numbers that peop0le - especially people like Pat Robertson - just pull out of their ass. Don't be so quick to just believe. It has happened (people going to jail that long for pot) but it is definitely not the norm. Locking people up for any kind of drug use does society no good, does the druggie no good, and is really just nuts.

And there is fairness in justice. It just, unfortunately, is not universal.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
You need to be extremely careful in believing numbers that peop0le - especially people like Pat Robertson - just pull out of their ass. Don't be so quick to just believe. It has happened (people going to jail that long for pot) but it is definitely not the norm. Locking people up for any kind of drug use does society no good, does the druggie no good, and is really just nuts.

And there is fairness in justice. It just, unfortunately, is not universal.
Well since you quoted Pat Robinson and did not correct his statement with regard to the prison sentence, I automatically believed that it was correct. But thanks for correcting it. I checked up on the Web and came up with the following two good articles with regard to prison sentences for marijuana related offenses:

I found this interesting PBS interview on marijuana and it also shows how much must have changed from 1997 to date:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/interviews/schlosser.html

I also found the following Judicial Government Report (2008) that gives the number of years prison sentences for the different categories of marijuana crimes as well as a summary of drug related prosecutions:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0455.htm
Related topics
Simpsons, What is is Fav
Denver CO: Marijuana Legalized
toking up!
Should marijuana be legal?
Whats your poison?
Would you do Heroin?
What is dangerous with Marijuana?
Well its 4/20!
Weed vs Alcohol vs Cigarette
Cali considers legalization of marijuana for tax revenue
any stoners out there??
New medical marijuana policy by Obama administration
2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)
What if I ran for office?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.