PDA

View Full Version : Should cannabis be legal in every country ?



Maciamo
08-11-02, 06:39
I am continuing here the discussion from this thread (http://forum.japanreference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=984)

Moyashi was saying :
I heard that weed is safer than cigarettes and alchol. hmmm ....

Not only have I heard the same, but that seems to have been proved by several scientific researches in many countries.

Tobacco causes lung cancer (also proven, I guess everyone knows) and is highly addictive psychologically (because of the nicotine).

Alcohol destroys the body cells in general, especially neurons that are more fragile than other cells. It is also highly addictive, but rather physically (you know, some of these manual workers who can't start their day without their 24 bottles of beer with them).

Like everything, abuse is nocive, while moderate consumption doesn' put health at risk. A heavy drinker (alcoholic) is more likely to have serious health problem than a heavy cannabis smoker. Cannabis doesn't cause cancer, is very little addictive (most users smoke just once in a while, without feeling the need for more) and has not yet been known to cause any disease or death by "overdose".

IMHO, cannabis should be legal if alcohol and tobaco are legal. I ma not saying that because I am interested in smoking it or obtain it easily, but by pure logic. People are free to put their health at risk with cigarettes and boot, and as long as warnings are clearly written on packs and bottles, I find it normal. It's probably a good thing to keep them legal as it can be controlled, fo instance with heavy taxes keeping prices high and thus actively discouraging people to abuse.

When centenarian are interviewed, they almost systematically say that they smoke and drink alcohol MODERATELY (3 butts and a glass of wine a day). But they do. So, like homeopathy, some substances are apparently good for the body at small dose, but poisonous/toxic at higher dose.

There is no law to force people to moderation. Henceforth, that must come from education.

I believe that drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes, must be kept/made legal in order to avoid black market criminality (mafias, etc.) and to better control what people are doing.

This can only happen in a country where people are reasonable or responsible. A vast number of Japanese smoke, but generally not more than a few cigarettes a day. I personally know lots of Western teenagers who unashamedly smoke 2 packs a day.
So, are the average American so irresponsible in regard to their European counterparts that cannabis must be so strictly banned, alcohol forbidden before 21-25, etc. ? By what crooked logic should weeds be outlawed for medical purpose, while even the hardest drugs like opium/morphine are actually legal (very good painkiller).

thomas
08-11-02, 09:54
It seems to be a common trend nowadays to decriminalize/legalize so-called soft drugs (such as cannabis). It's certainly a step in the right direction. In most European countries drug offences involving cannabis are no longer prosecuted, as long as the amount in question can still be justified for personal consumption. From a criminal (and perhaps medical) point of view, cannabis is certainly less dangerous than alcohol which means that the amount of crimes committed under the influence of grass is marginal compared to alcohol-related crimes.


So, like homeopathy, some substances are apparently good for the body at small dose, but poisonous/toxic at higher dose.

Take our neighbour: she's 97, smoked until her eighties and still has her daily glass of wine. However, I'm generally a bit sceptical when it comes to homeopathy, as it *seems* to be based on nothing else than placebo effect.

I know it's off topic, but the delicate question is how to deal with hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, "new drugs"). Continue the hard stance or try to decriminalize as well under strict governmental control?

Twisted
08-11-02, 11:30
You could ask wether or not cannabis should be legal, but you could also ask this question: Why are alcohol and cigarettes legal at all?
You're pretty pathetic if you need alcohol to have a good time or having to smoke to keep your nerves in order. It's proven that it's bad for your health, so logically, there's no reason not to make it illegal.
The most probable reason is that the people in charge are heavy users themselves.
In Holland we have government officials that have admitted they have used drugs in the past and nobody thinks it's a big deal.

Maciamo
08-11-02, 13:46
@government officials in charge
Unfortunately, in the so-called democracy we live in, decision are taken by just a few officials and everything depends on them, not really the population.

@should alcohol and tobacco stay legal ?
alcohol has always been part of human societies since the antiquity and I can't imagine a country banning it without facing a revolution. I wouldn't mind personally, except maybe for wine. Could you imagine a country like France or Germany banning alcohol (or most Western countries actually) ? The economy would suffer terribly. Besides, it's also proven that a glass of red wine a day is good for health.

Similarily, I have never smoked and it will stay like that, so I am being the devil's advocate here. Tobacco is not going to be illegal because big lobby groups assure it won't.

Restricting freedom isn't good ; I find it more harmful than having access to toxic substances. Our life is our, I don't see why the authorities try so hard to care about people's health.

If I wanted to travel to some dangerous regions because I like adventure, I wouldn't like to have the government restricting me from doing it because they believe it's risky. That's my choice, they have nothing to say in this. That's the same for cigarettes, alcohol, weeds or even hard drugs. Anyway, people who want to find drug can just travel to any country where it's made and get it cheap and easily. No government can prevent that and they know people do it. So why not at home ? To keep their hands and conscience clean ? From whom ?

thomas
08-11-02, 14:21
> I don't see why the authorities try so hard to care
> about people's health.

With all due respect to liberal political views, I think that there are public functions that should remain under governmental control by all means: water supply, electricity, postal services and in particular public health. Don't get me wrong: I'm not favoring an omnipotential paternalistic government la Big Brother, but as long as we benefit from national social security and health insurance each government is compelled to cut down medical expenses by ensuring public health. Alcohol and tobacco will never be banned (since governments benefit from taxes generated by these industries), but pointing out health hazards and trying to reduce the number of potential patients are no infringement of our personal freedom.

Twisted
08-11-02, 14:45
It's also a fact that most people are brainless lemmings who will follow every trend that's forced upon them.

This is especially true with young people who don't realize how addictive drugs can be. They're just doing it because everyone else is doing it.

It's the job of the authorities to protect those people from themselves.

And cannabis itself might not be that bad, but i think there's a very thin line between trying soft-drugs and trying hard-drugs.

@Revolution
I knew someone would bring that up. If you ban tobacco and alcohol you might as well ban fast food as well. Now that's a health hazard! But then i would be the first one to lead a revolt. :)

thomas
08-11-02, 14:58
> And cannabis itself might not be that bad, but i think there's a
> very thin line between trying soft-drugs and trying hard-drugs.

That's a very good point!

@ fast food

Probably food chains will soon be forced to add labels to each burger warning of potential health risks (I think we had that topic already). It's a general legal trend to hold others responsible for personal risks.

Maciamo
08-11-02, 15:04
Thomas, I totally agree with you.

Of course, I am in favour of a government type that provides health insurance, even free public health care, and social security. These are things the state can do to help, but I would also be grateful if they helped people in giving them the freedom to choose how they live their lives, what they consume and even to **** their health up if that's what they want - as long as it doesn't infringe on other's people liberty...

Another thing that I find an unacceptable breach in human liberties is how most governments make it difficult or near impossible to change your name. In the UK, anybody is free to call himself whatever they want and change name as many times as they want. The easiest legal way to do it is by deed polls (http://www.deedpollsonline.co.uk/). Unfortunately, very few non English speaking countries admit name changes by deed polls or without passing through long tedious and costly juridical procedures, that might not even be granted if you don't have a good reason (such as ridiculous name, etc.). In the US, I have read that it was usually possible by petition (brought to a judge), but much easier in some states than in others. Why should every region (inside the US, EU...) have so different laws on such basic rights is still a mystery for me.

thomas
08-11-02, 15:15
I've never heard about these deed polls, very interesting. Central European law practice does not know unilateral contracts that are binding to third parties, at least I am not aware of such a construction. At first glance it's obvious why most governments are not in favor of such deed polls, they could potentially destabilise the safe adminstration of law. Just think of how easily such things could be abused.

/me has to find out more about deed polls

Maciamo
08-11-02, 15:38
I understand your concern about the safe administration of law. You would risk a lot to do it fraudulently, but if your intention are fraudulous, there are always ways of trafficking passports, ID or official documents. Basically, whether one just makes up a new birth certificate on your computer, asks professionals to forge some papers or does a fraudulent deed polls is the same and can all end up in a jail sentence. If you are honest, then why not have the right to do it ?

Notice that British ciyizens don't have ID cards yet (but it might come soon), so it has always been easy to open a bank account or buy something under a made-up name. In Australia, till recently it was possible to open a bank account under the name of Mickey Mouse and no one would have asked any proof or raised an eyebrow. That just seems incredible for continental Europeans, I agree. To get a passport legally, even with the simplicity of deed polls, it would be hard to get two under different names (anyway, it wouldn't be legal).

Still, name changes don't seems to be such a problem if the UK and other commonwealth countries can manage with this system.

moyashi
08-11-02, 19:01
Interestingly enough I'm for legalization of drugs too.

Banning alcohol didn't work and only made the mob richer so I'm for taking away drug money out of the gangs pockets.

Legalization will provide a safe supply compared to what you buy on the street, you never know if you're getting good smak or watered down sh_t.

Also, beyond quality control you can limit the power of what people take.

DO I support drugs. I've tried pot a few times. It wasn't my thing. I'd prefer a society without them actually. But, I also understand that reality is something we need to face.

@ safety
I've never heard of an accident involving weed. While drunk driving we see almost every night non TV. I bet that weed would prevent a lot of the postal shootings in the states too since it's a great way to relieve stress.

@ name change in Japan
Is virtually impossible. There been cases were Grandpa register's a new born's name as "Toranosuke" while the parents were thinking of something like "Riki" the problem is that only a hanko (seal) is used and the document becomes binding. Lawyers and Judges need to brought in to fix it for a nice healthy fee.

Hmm, Deed Poll ... sounds like an interesting idea.

Maciamo
09-11-02, 10:48
@name change in Japan
My wife actually could change her first name from kanji to hiragana when she was a child (her father had chosen the kanji, but her mother didn't like it). However it took 5 years in court and a lot of money !

thomas
09-11-02, 12:25
Changing your name in Germany and Austria (and probably in other European countries) requires you to go through courts as well. Welp, it wouldn't take 5 years, but it's pretty expensive, considering the fact that you have to change all personal documents from birth certificate to passports. And yes, the authorities have the right to object to certain names in order to "protect" the applicant from inconvenience. Take the recent case of the Turkish guy living in Germany who intended to call his son "Osama Bin Laden".

Maciamo
09-11-02, 14:07
I have checked a few sites on the net and so far I know that the proceedings are similar in France and Belgium. A Belgian official website put its stance clearly : "changing name is a favour, not a right". In both countries you have to apply to several offices, state the reason(s) why you want to change your name and wait for the decision of the judge. It seems easier for people with foreign sounding name to change so that they can adapt more easily. I have heard of several cases of people of Moroccan or Algerian origins being discriminated when they apply for a job just because their name is Mohamed Abdulah or the like.

moyashi
10-11-02, 18:33
A few years back a father wanted to call his son "Akuma" he used kanji approved by the country and even took the government to court. Obviously he lost since the name means "Devil" the father was trying to fit for his right to name his son what ever he wanted and to provide his child with a name that would leave an impression.

thomas
10-11-02, 22:24
I've heard about the Akuma case. Would it be possible in the States to call your child "Satan"? Do authorities have the right to interfere?

Btw, just let me post an article related to the original topic:

Restoring hemp to natural place in Japan's culture

=> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20021109a1.htm

=> http://www.hemp.jp/e-top.html

moyashi
11-11-02, 02:22
Yasunao Nakayama is definitely "connected". hmmm, with long hair like that!
He looks like a friend that's ahem ... connected.

Great Story actually. My aikido-gi is made from hemp. Really strong material actually. I've seen hemp surfboards too - basically unbreakable.

Maciamo
11-11-02, 03:04
@hemp in traditional Japan
That's fair enough. India is the country of hemp par excellence and even there it is not really legal (for foreigners at least) to smoke it any more. The sadhus (Hindu saints) still consume it regularily and its so ingrained in the culture that no one who dare telling them anything. Actually, India also grows poppy and make opium. In Varanasi, I have seen a so-called "government shop" that was the only legal place to buy cannabis or opium, usually in cakes. Cannabis and opium have nothing to do with each other, however they are grouped together as "drug" under the influence of the US. Locals don't really care about drug laws in India. It's just a matter of international image and is chiefly destined to make money on the tourists's back, either by making them buy in "government shop" or fining them heavily otherwise (there's been several cases of imprisonment in Goa for those unable to pay the huge fine). Japan, India and other Asian countries should reconnect with their own culture and free themselves from Western influence. Singapore is for me the pinnacle of eagerly conformist society, ready to please the West by adopting its concepts and moral to extremes (for those of you who have been to Singapore and know what I am talking about- for others here ! (http://leiden.nl.synquest.com/bj/trips/singapore/fines.htm)).

@Hemp Car
So they want to fight fossil combustion and to achieve this they'll drive 5000km by car. Did I miss something there ?

thomas
11-11-02, 10:22
Just a brief question in regard to Singapore: isn't their rigidity a product of confucian thought? I'm not sure if they are trying hard to please the West.

Twisted
11-11-02, 14:39
And then there was this report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm

Maciamo
11-11-02, 16:07
Apparently scientists's opinions are divided. Here is an intersting debate on the BBCi Science section (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/cannabis/index.shtml?displayresults=1&configfile=ht_vote_cannabis.xml#vote).

I didn't know cannabis cigarettes had more tar than tobacco, and therefore was more harmful for lungs.

On the other hand, there are plenty of ways to consume cannabis. I am no expert on this, but smoking pot seem to be totally harmless for lungs as there is no combustion. In India, the most popular way people had cannabis was through "special lassi" (a lassi is a kind of milkshake; special because made with marijuana or hashish). As I mentioned above, there are cannabis cookies as well. Some restaurants had "special pizza" in other countries (Thailand, etc.). You put what you want in them; sometimes weed, or magic mushrooms, even opium. I haven't tried any of them though.

I believe that magic mushrooms and opium are much more dangerous. Hallucinogenes (including LSD, mescaline, ecstasy, magic mushrooms...) should definitely be banned as they can leave someone mentally disturbed for life (if they have a "bad trip"). One time is enough if you are unlucky. Never even try.

Opium, morphine and heroine are painkiller and give a sensation of extreme well feeling, but have terrible side-effect and dependency. If sex is addictive (and it is), then heroine is 10 times more. Can you imagine quitting sex for the rest of your life ? Once you've tried heroine, it's the same, you can't imagine not trying again. Don't even think of touching it.

Cocaines and amphetamines are stimulants. They make you feel like a super human, boost up intelligence and physical strength and you never feel tired... until the effect stops and the reverse is happening. If you don't continue the intakes, you'll feel miserably depressed, devoid of energy and sullen. That's how dependency starts. Notice that it's more physical, while heroine's was very psychological.

In the whole, I think cannabis is very benign in comparison to other drugs. I wouldn't be so sure to legalise all kind of drugs, at least not without a very tight control and medical follow-up of addicts to help them quit. But cannabis, especially if consume in another form than cigarette is almsot certainly safer than alcohol and tobacco.

Satori
14-11-03, 08:56
Hi Maciamo! I agree with you on this one. And here is an article with respect to the issue in the U.S.:

Once-Secret "Nixon Tapes" Show Why the U.S. Outlawed Pot
Kevin Zeese, AlterNet
March 21, 2002
Viewed on March 29, 2002

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thirty years ago the United States came to a critical juncture in the drug war. A Nixon-appointed presidential commission had recommended that marijuana use not be a criminal offense under state or federal law. But Nixon himself, based on his zealous personal preferences, overruled the commission's research and doomed marijuana to its current illegal status.

This newly revealed information comes from declassified tapes of Oval Office conversations from 1971 and 1972, which show Nixon's aggressive anti-drug stance putting him directly at odds against many of his close advisors. Transcripts of the tape, and a report based on them, are available at www.csdp.org.

Congress, when it passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, temporarily labeled marijuana a "Schedule I substance" -- a flatly illegal drug with no approved medical purposes. But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana to permanently relegate it to Schedule I, and so they created a presidential commission to review the research and recommend a long-term strategy. President Nixon got to appoint the bulk of the commissioners. Not surprisingly, he loaded it with drug warriors. Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman. As a former prosecutor, Shafer had a "law and order," drug warrior reputation. Nixon also appointed nine Commissioners, including the dean of a law school, the head of a mental health hospital, and a retired Chicago police captain. Along with the Nixon appointees, two senators and two congressmen from each party served on the Commission.

The Shafer Commission -- officially known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects, polled the public and members of the criminal justice community, and took thousands of pages of testimony. Their work is still the most comprehensive review of marijuana ever conducted by the federal government.

After reviewing all the evidence, these drug warriors were forced to come to a different conclusion than they had at first expected. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about legalization. When Nixon heard such talk, he quickly denounced the Commission -- months before it issued its report.

As a result of Nixon's public rebuke, Shafer met with the President. The Commission was upset, and the purpose of the meeting was to reassure them. But Nixon didn't budge. Instead, he warned Shafer to get control of his commission and avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders" who are "soft on marijuana." He warned Shafer that the Commission would "look bad as hell" if it came out with recommendations different from the direction of Congress and the President.

During their meeting, Shafer reassured the President that he would not support "legalization," even though there were some on the Commission who did. He told Nixon they were looking for a unanimous recommendation. Nixon warned Shafer that he "had very strong feelings" on marijuana. Nixon and Shafer also discussed Shafer's potential appointment to a federal judgeship.

But in the end, the Shafer Commission issued a report that tried to correct the "extensive degree of misinformation," to "demythologize" and "desymbolize" marijuana. They reported finding that marijuana did not cause crime or aggression, lead to harder drug use or create significant biochemical, mental or physical abnormalities. They concluded: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

The most important recommendation of the Commission was the decriminalization of possession or non-profit transfer of marijuana. Decriminalization meant there would be no punishment -- criminal or civil -- under state or federal law.

Nixon reacted strongly to the report. In a recorded conversation on March 21, the day before the Commission released its report, Nixon said, "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Nixon and his advisors went on to plan a speech about why he opposed marijuana legalization, and proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" during the 1972 presidential election year. Nixon wanted a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them."

Shafer was never appointed to the federal court.

Nixon's private comments about marijuana showed he was the epitome of misinformation and prejudice. He believed marijuana led to hard drugs, despite the evidence to the contrary. He saw marijuana as tied to "radical demonstrators." He believed that "the Jews," especially "Jewish psychiatrists" were behind advocacy for legalization, asking advisor Bob Haldeman, "What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?" He made a bizarre distinction between marijuana and alcohol, saying people use marijuana "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun."

He also saw marijuana as part of the culture war that was destroying the United States, and claimed that Communists were using it as a weapon. "Homosexuality, dope, immorality in general," Nixon fumed. "These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us." His approach drug education was just as simplistic: "Enforce the law. You've got to scare them."

Unfortunately, Nixon did more than just "scare them," whoever they were. His marijuana war rhetoric led to a dramatic increase in arrests. One year after his "all out war" comments, marijuana arrests jumped to 420,700 a year -- a full 128,000 more than the year before. Since then, nearly 15 million people have been arrested for marijuana offenses.

For thirty years, the United States has taken the path of Nixon's prejudice and ignored the experts. We now have the largest prison population in world history, and drug problems are no closer to solved. Indeed, plenty of evidence indicates that drug-related problems are worse than ever.

It did not have to be this way. At the same time that the Shafer Commission issued its report, the Bain Commission in Holland issued a report that made similar findings and recommendations. In Holland, they followed the advice of their experts. Thirty years later Holland has half the per-capita marijuana use as the U.S., far fewer drug-related problems and spends much less on drug enforcement. With statistics like that, it's no wonder that most of Europe is going Dutch. Just last week a British Commission issued a Shafer-like report, indicating that the U.K. is moving in the Dutch direction.

It is not too late for the U.S. to move to a more sensible path. We are approaching three quarters of a million marijuana arrests annually. Every year that the U.S. fails to adopt a policy based on research, science and facts we destroy millions of lives and tear apart millions of families.

Where will we be in another thirty years if we don't change course and make peace in the marijuana war? Now that we know the war's roots are rotten -- and after we've lived through the decades of damage and failure it has produced -- we should face the facts. The thirty-year- old recommendations of the Shafer Commission are a good place to start.

Kevin Zeese is the president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduction of material from any AlterNet.org pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. 2001 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Djzleite
14-11-03, 21:18
Should never be ilegal form the start, hope it becomes legalised, it haves amazing properties if used right ;)

Ten'shi-no-Shippuu
30-04-04, 17:13
Go for Illegal!!
I made a thread about on the french forum:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8019

playaa
30-04-04, 17:16
I don't smoke, nore drink much (only social) but I think it should be the user's choice. Your body, your choice what you do shouldn't be stopped and controlled by someone else unless it is harming others!

I also think it would help the situation, take for example prostitution in the U.S. and then prostitution that is being helped out by amsterdam, etc. Look at how much more control they have over the situation when it is helped instead of banned.

Hachiko
30-04-04, 20:04
If it's for medical reason, so be it. Otherwise, it cannot be used. And for the medical reason case, every patient will have to be supervised very carefully that they don't traffick it. It needs to also be in tablets, and not in leafs, some which may be laced. NO EXCEPTIONS.

EscaFlowne
04-05-04, 15:32
If it's for medical reason, so be it. Otherwise, it cannot be used. And for the medical reason case, every patient will have to be supervised very carefully that they don't traffick it. It needs to also be in tablets, and not in leafs, some which may be laced. NO EXCEPTIONS.

TAblets?? which may be laced... :souka:
[shakes head..]
I believe that it should be legalized. The govt. could have some control if they weren't trying to bust everyone that sells it. Even though they know some people who have it, ship it in, or move it...there are still millions who get it here that they don't know about it. The medical reason are are sooo useful, with a much milder side-effect from small doses, while cigarettes do twice as bad a job.
I think most people need to realize that there is not much now'a'days thats absolutely healthy for you. I mean if you go to some of the islands and find out about remedies use for problems that a person has, cannabis finds it way into most of them. I mean it can be made into a tea for coughing fits and arthritis[spl?]. Then the fact its use for cancer patients...I mean true it has its bad size for people who would abuse it. But look at the way that people abuse cigarettes and alcohol.......We all know the consequences of it yet its legal....
Somethings are going to be useful like this, if moderated and used properly. Thats my opinion. :souka:

playaa
04-05-04, 15:56
TAblets?? which may be laced... :souka:
[shakes head..]
I believe that it should be legalized. The govt. could have some control if they weren't trying to bust everyone that sells it. Even though they know some people who have it, ship it in, or move it...there are still millions who get it here that they don't know about it. The medical reason are are sooo useful, with a much milder side-effect from small doses, while cigarettes do twice as bad a job.
I think most people need to realize that there is not much now'a'days thats absolutely healthy for you. I mean if you go to some of the islands and find out about remedies use for problems that a person has, cannabis finds it way into most of them. I mean it can be made into a tea for coughing fits and arthritis[spl?]. Then the fact its use for cancer patients...I mean true it has its bad size for people who would abuse it. But look at the way that people abuse cigarettes and alcohol.......We all know the consequences of it yet its legal....
Somethings are going to be useful like this, if moderated and used properly. Thats my opinion. :souka:


My opinion pretty much also.. I just say we should have to make our own decision if we choose to harm ourself then thats our choice. The government shouldnt be there to slap us on the hand everytime we make a bad choice like we are all some 2 year olds. :okashii:

Budderfly
16-05-04, 23:10
I think my home province of BC is leaning towards legalizing pot so they can tax the crap out of it. The law is very lenient here. They just go after the grow-ops, they don't care too much about the dealers/smokers.

Duo
26-06-04, 02:10
On the point about Cannabis, I also feel that it should be legalized. Just because it will become legal, it wont mean that everybody will start to smoke it and get hooked on it. When something is illegal it has a certain appeal to it. You want to do what you are prohibited. Also, on Hard drugs, whatever that means, I think it would be better if the Gov regulated their sale as well. So, if one wants to buy extcasy, he can go to a state-owned facility and buy it. At least in this way, he can receive info on the potency and effects of the drug, and not just buy anything in random out in the street that he has no idea how it has been "cut" or with wat.

Areku
26-06-04, 02:59
Yes, it should be legal, considering it's safer than Alcohol. How many deaths/injuries/addiction problems are there per year because of alcohol? fights, drink driving, etc etc....it just doesn't compare to cannabis.

Cannabis makes you feel more relaxed and laid back, while alcohol just makes you unstable.

Then again, I'm not too keen on the idea of youths going round smoking it all the time, because it can make you do stupid things, even if less so than alcohol.

Glenn
26-06-04, 03:05
Then again, I'm not too keen on the idea of youths going round smoking it all the time, because it can make you do stupid things, even if less so than alcohol.

And not just make you do stupid things, but it can make you stupid. :p :p

Areku
26-06-04, 03:09
haha, yeah I've met quite a few people who smoke it waaaay too much and live their lives in a kind of constant trance. Maybe that's going a bit too far :?

Glenn
26-06-04, 03:18
I'd say that it is. :-) ;-)

Frank D. White
26-06-04, 16:58
the person who feels they can't live without the drug, but can't come up with the money legally, to buy it. I don't want to be their victim when they steal, rob, or even kill to get the money they need. I'm not to sure I want to depend on someone who is stoned to provide a service for me either? Would you want a paramedic trying to save your life or driving you in an ambulance at high speed while stoned? I think if pot were as available as alcohol we
would double our problems we now have with booze alone!

Frank

:blush:

Glenn
26-06-04, 17:10
I doubt it. People are using it anyway. It's not like whether it's legalized will change that all that much. Even during prohibition I'm sure there were people who went to work drunk.

mad pierrot
27-06-04, 07:33
I still think one of the greatest jokes in America is that alcohol and tobacco are legal and cannabis isn't. The same thing applies to ephedra.

:p :D :D :D

Too many people fear what they don't understand. You can't buy ephedra, but there are drive-thru booze stores?

:?

Buddha Smoker
27-06-04, 11:06
I'm all for it...not that I smoke but it would be a good time out after work. Head to the local pub and light one up. :D

Seriously, I agree...what's the difference if tobacco and alcohol are legal? Just put an age restriction on it like 21 to 25 and laws about working under the influence of it.

dadako
28-06-04, 01:43
the bill of rights is written on the stuff

Golgo_13
09-07-04, 20:29
No, I don't like cannibals.

They always leave behind such a mess after they eat.

EscaFlowne
09-07-04, 21:38
:souka:
[Looks at Golgo_13]
Cannibals.....
Cannibis.......
:p

misa.j
10-07-04, 22:19
I call it 'Bungy' just because it sounds funny. :p
For a medicinal reason, if the scientists came to a conclusion that cannabis is the only cure for whatever the simptoms, which I doubt strongly, they should go ahead and use it.

It is hard to tell when someone is stoned since you can hide it pretty easily w/ eyedrops or mints, and by looking as serious, though Bungy does make you have poor cordination and influences on the short term memory. I agree w/ Frank on not wanting to be treated or have a ride by a stoner.

It is smoking after all, which has a secondhand smoking problem, can be inhaled by children or infants.

blessed
31-07-04, 12:34
i don't really smoke it, usually i just allow friends to hothouse the room :D .
but, um, i'll have to quote Bill Hicks on this:
"Marijuana grows naturaly on the earth. Making marijuana against the law, is like saying that God made a mistake"
It's quite ironic that the most religious developed country in the world, America, also has the toughest marijuana laws.

Sinspawne
13-08-04, 19:25
Alcohol tastes good and thats why i drink it.. to force your body into getting used to inhaling smoke (You caugh for a reason you know) is STUPID ! ! !

I smoke.. i don't like it... but i do... I'm an IDIOT ! !


Ban all tobacko and other crap that we smoke , then future genarations of stupid kids won't start smoking...

bossel
14-08-04, 02:25
Ban all tobacko and other crap that we smoke , then future genarations of stupid kids won't start smoking...
That would only work in another dimension. Lots of banned things around which still find a lot of users.

DragonChan
14-08-04, 04:00
I'm one of those 'annoying people' who hates cigs/alcohol/drugs in general. Aside from the whole 'it's horrible for your body, destroys your brain, and makes you act like a total idiot' arguments...

They say the crime rates for people on weed is low, but they don't have any tests that can prove whether or not you've smoked up. Driving when you're stoned is dangerous, but I know people who do all the time. So essentially until they can develop a test to determine if a person is 'under the influence' I don't think they should consider making it legal.

cathy
14-08-04, 05:16
I'm one of those 'annoying people' who hates cigs/alcohol/drugs in general. Aside from the whole 'it's horrible for your body, destroys your brain, and makes you act like a total idiot' arguments...

They say the crime rates for people on weed is low, but they don't have any tests that can prove whether or not you've smoked up. Driving when you're stoned is dangerous, but I know people who do all the time. So essentially until they can develop a test to determine if a person is 'under the influence' I don't think they should consider making it legal.


Not to me you are not an annoying person. On the contrary, you are one of the rare, smart human that care for your body.

Cannabis is a drug and should be used for illments. Using for any other reason is an addiction. Unfortunate, this world is full of human addicts.

Addictions only benefit to organized crime. The user is a looser victimized.

Glenn
14-08-04, 05:18
Using for any other reason is an addiction. Unfortunate, this world is full of human addicts.

Addictions only benefit to organized crime. The user is a looser victimized.

It's not addictive. Using for recreational purposes isn't addiction. Anyway, do alcoholics benefit organized crime?

60Yen
15-08-04, 17:49
Well, I think it's legal in my country to use cannabis. But to say it's safer than tabbaco, no. Isn't cannabis used in combination with tabacco? Cannabis can make people paranod as well. But I do think it should be legal. I'm a liberal and I think people above the age of 18 are old enough to make a decesion about using it. I can easily get my hands on drugs, though it doesn't pick my intrest and so I don't use it. Classmates of mine do, but I guess it's their choice.

I think allowing it, would be better. The Goverment could have more influence on the quality of cannabis etc. But only allowed from age 18 and upwards.

cathy
15-08-04, 19:46
It's not addictive. Using for recreational purposes isn't addiction. Anyway, do alcoholics benefit organized crime?


Alchohol is one of the things that organized crime live on. They counterfeit everything, and alchohol is one of the best bootleg for organized crime, since many people drink alchoholic beverage. The underground black market make bootleg alchoholic beverage with: cheap perfume,window cleaner, shoe polish, and other toxic ingredients. Then they sell to stores very cheep. if the store refuse to buy from them, the mob intimedate them.

Drug and alchohol goes hand on hand.

Believe or not, the organized crime got their hands everyware. And the politicians, (including presidents, and, high and low, law autoruty is involved.

the biggest and rootless one in USA organized crime are not italian mafiya but the jwish mafiya. They control just about everything in USA, Europe, Midle East, and Russia. Plus many other country around the world.

If you go googling for jew, you will find things that you and millions other citezens, never dream otf it.

A good book to read is: "the Godfather Of the Kremlin", or "joe the hit man".

The author of The Godfather of the kremlin, was gunned down not to long go buy the organized crime. So other 15 reporters and writers.

Many hundreds of people, eather are gunned down or killed by "natural couse" like car incidents heart attack and so fort. The authority can`t reveal the real couse, they are afraid of the retaliation of the mobs.


Well, I think it's legal in my country to use cannabis. But to say it's safer than tabbaco, no. Isn't cannabis used in combination with tabacco? Cannabis can make people paranod as well. But I do think it should be legal. I'm a liberal and I think people above the age of 18 are old enough to make a decesion about using it. I can easily get my hands on drugs, though it doesn't pick my intrest and so I don't use it. Classmates of mine do, but I guess it's their choice.

I think allowing it, would be better. The Goverment could have more influence on the quality of cannabis etc. But only allowed from age 18 and upwards.

Government leaders never gone to ligalize drug. They are deep involved themself with the organized crime. There`s big money involved. Its not convenient to to them, to let regular citezens obtain their own.

60Yen
15-08-04, 19:59
What I'm saying, when you put it into legal canals, the illegal criminals have less clients, because clients can buy it legal too. I think you prefer to buy your sigarettes legal above illegal, at least I would. In this way, the goverment can set demands on quality of cannabis....

bossel
16-08-04, 04:58
Drug and alchohol goes hand on hand.
Hmm, alcohol is a drug. In Europe most people would disagree with you. Many would even demonise drug use, although they themselves are heavy drinkers. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Germany Marijuana smokers are not necessarily those who drink the most.




the biggest and rootless one in USA organized crime are not italian mafiya but the jwish mafiya. They control just about everything in USA, Europe, Midle East, and Russia. Plus many other country around the world.

If you go googling for jew, you will find things that you and millions other citezens, never dream otf it.
That sounds a little bit too much like one of those conspiracy theories going round. There are a lot of Jews in influential positions, but to say that they control everything is slightly far-fetched.



Government leaders never gone to ligalize drug. They are deep involved themself with the organized crime. There`s big money involved. Its not convenient to to them, to let regular citezens obtain their own.
Well, I would call government a criminal organisation. But for the most part, I suppose, they see the illegal organised crime as competition, they're not actively involved (in most of Western Europe at least).

topi
16-08-04, 10:49
I'm one of those 'annoying people' who hates cigs/alcohol/drugs in general. Aside from the whole 'it's horrible for your body, destroys your brain, and makes you act like a total idiot' arguments...

They say the crime rates for people on weed is low, but they don't have any tests that can prove whether or not you've smoked up. Driving when you're stoned is dangerous, but I know people who do all the time. So essentially until they can develop a test to determine if a person is 'under the influence' I don't think they should consider making it legal.
I am one of 'those' too :D

My freinds say im awkward, but then they have no money and cant talk properly because of the booze/drugs.

So to people that dont drink or smoke, saying that cannabis should be legalised because cigarettes and alchohol are, is a very stupid argument.

I dont agree with banning it all, because some people depend on alchohol/drugs, and I feel sorry for them.

PaulTB
16-08-04, 11:19
If you go googling for jew, you will find things that you and millions other citezens, never dream otf it.
Yeah and one in 20 or so of them might actually be true.


What I'm saying, when you put it into legal canals, the illegal criminals have less clients, because clients can buy it legal too. I think you prefer to buy your sigarettes legal above illegal, at least I would. In this way, the goverment can set demands on quality of cannabis....
Not to mention the government should like it because they get to tax the suckers into the stratosphere. :D

Although that can be overdone. If you look at cigarettes for example the UK government taxes them so heavily that cigarette smuggling is a massive business.

Incidently there are ways of testing for driving impairment due to drugs in general and cannabis in particular although they are still in the early stages of design and not (AFAIK) in general use yet.

bossel
17-08-04, 00:17
Incidently there are ways of testing for driving impairment due to drugs in general and cannabis in particular although they are still in the early stages of design and not (AFAIK) in general use yet.
In Germany 2 ways of drug testing are already in use: saliva tests & the so-called "drugwipe". If those tests show evidence of drug use, the drivers need to have their blood examined. Only the results of the blood tests are to be used in court.

60Yen
17-08-04, 09:51
Well about the taxes, that would offcourse be nice too. :blush:

Satori
23-08-04, 21:29
Well, I commented on this earlier in the thread, but now that the thread has been made into a poll, I took the poll as well. I choose "Yes, there is absolutely no reason to make it illegal." So that's my vote, for what it's worth! :smoke: :v:

Satori
01-09-04, 03:21
I thought this was interesting ...


Mental Marijuana
By Philip Dawdy, Seattle Weekly
Posted on August 26, 2004


Smoking marijuana, the federal government constantly reminds us, is dangerous in every way. It impairs cognitive functioning, makes you high, and, because it's smoked, is a demon in a bong hit and so on.

A counterargument is that pot has helped thousands of cancer and AIDS patients, for example, contend with side effects of their illnesses and treatments. There is also evidence that marijuana works for some psychiatric disorders as well, principally depression and bipolar disorder. Among some people, pot is jokingly referred to as "green Prozac."

The problem is you can't legally take a toke for psychiatric diagnoses.

"I think cannabis has a lot of potential in the treatment of mental illness," says Lester Grinspoon, emeritus professor of psychiatry at the Harvard School of Medicine. He says that it can be an effective treatment for bipolar disorder and depression. Like any medicine, he cautions, it won't work for everyone. Grinspoon has, over the last three decades, been one of the few psychiatrists willing to speak publicly on mental marijuana.

Most of the evidence to support use of pot as medicine is anecdotal; i.e., it seems to help AIDS and cancer patients contend with their diseases and handle the nausea they often experience from treatment, so there must be something to it. Many people also report that it provides a quick lift from the bowels of depression.

My own anecdotal, ahem, experience is that pot does indeed boost my mood from the badlands of depression and lower me from the Mount Everests of mania. I have no idea why or how, nor do I especially care I'm one of those people who find Prozac and its progeny to be barely effective and with enough nasty side effects to outweigh the benefits. But I'll never tell that to the Drug Enforcement Administration or drug czar John Walters.

Instead, I'll let the Israeli army speak for me. Two weeks ago, it announced that it would provide, on an experimental basis, medical marijuana to troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, another mental illness. Good enough for an army, good enough for me.

But in states with medical marijuana laws, each attempt to get depression or bipolar disorder added to the list of ailments for which the kine can be oh-so-kind has been shot down.

For example, four years ago, the Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission was petitioned to add mental illness to its list of approved uses of medical marijuana. The commission denied the request. It argued that there was no lock-solid scientific evidence that weed worked for mental illness. The odd thing is that it had approved pot for treatment of Alzheimer's, Krohn's disease, chronic pain, and wasting syndrome based upon you guessed it anecdotal evidence.

The feds would like to keep any evidence that reefer is an Rx anecdotal no peer-reviewed, double-blind studies here as it bolsters their case that there's no scientific proof that pot works for anything except getting people high. It's the evil weed.

As proof, the DEA touts the following from a 1999 scientific report: It states that " . . . there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication."

The report was prepared by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the independent National Academies of Science. Interestingly, the feds lifted that quote from deep in the report. But perhaps more telling is that only one sentence later, the report says: "The personal medical use of smoked marijuana regardless of whether or not it is approved to treat certain symptoms is reason enough to advocate clinical trials to assess the degree to which the symptoms or course of diseases are affected."

The IOM backed that up with several strong recommendations that medical marijuana should be thoroughly studied you know, like scientists study every other treatment under the sun.

To date, that hasn't happened.

"Who is going to get approval from an institutional review board to break the law?" asks Grinspoon. Researchers must have their studies cleared by such boards before they can do experiments with humans. He likens the situation to that of lithium. Its efficacy for treating mental illness was found by accident in the 1940s by an Australian scientist. The evidence was anecdotal. It wasn't until the late 1950s that the feds allowed it to be used in this country, despite the fact that it was saving lives on the other side of the globe.

That's not to say that marijuana is the new lithium or an all-conquering antidepressant. This is not an argument for 40 grams to freedom. Most psych meds work quite well for an estimated 60 percent to 70 percent of patients. It's the remaining 30 percent to 40 percent who are in a sketchier situation. If the approved meds don't work at all or barely work their alleged magic, where are you supposed to turn?

Psychiatrists usually prescribe another med such as Lexapro, a new antidepressant that's all the rage these days. Personally, I found that marijuana had a positive effect quite by accident, especially when dealing with short-lived psychoses. Medications for that typically take hours or days to work and when you are in that state, you aren't interested in anything but relief by any means necessary, stat.

So let's assume that weed works for a minority of the mentally ill. Doctors usually come back with the assertion that pot has too many side effects, such as respiratory ailments, to even consider its use. I wonder what universe they live in. Long-term use of psych meds themselves carries a host of side effects, which have been poorly evaluated in long-term studies kidney and liver damage chief among them, along with nausea, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, sleep interference, and hair loss. And they talk about the side effects of marijuana? By comparison, pot's side effects are almost minimal. So, I'll take that medical marijuana any day I'd simply like to do it legally.
2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19687/

bossel
21-09-04, 04:22
In Germany 2 ways of drug testing are already in use: saliva tests & the so-called "drugwipe". If those tests show evidence of drug use, the drivers need to have their blood examined. Only the results of the blood tests are to be used in court.
Little update to the above: as it turns out, although drugwipe is widely used in Germany, it's unreliable. In case of Cannabis more than 20% of the tests show false results. For other drugs the results vary, best are those for opiates.

But not only drugwipe has a high failure rate, some of the common alcohol tests are a bit unreliable, too. It seems that bigger people get lower results when having the same blood alcohol level, for they have a bigger lung volume. Maybe this is only related to the software used in some of the devices, but if you're small & get a result slightly over the top you should insist on a blood test.

cicatriz esp
28-09-04, 13:45
i'll have to quote Bill Hicks on this:
"Marijuana grows naturaly on the earth. Making marijuana against the law, is like saying that God made a mistake"
It's quite ironic that the most religious developed country in the world, America, also has the toughest marijuana laws.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4525

Possession is a misdemeanor. In some states, all you get is a civil citation. Actually, i think possession of around 2 pounds or more turns into a felony. I have literally shared a joint with an off duty cop once.

Selling is a different story, and is generally a felony.

The AnteLyfe
13-01-05, 03:24
I think the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible, so yes I feel it should be legal

but to the effect that it must be consumed in designated areas (as with alcohol, you shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street smoking a joint)...

As long as you aren't giving anyone second-hand smoke by doing it, I figure it ought to be legal...

~ a "retired" smoker, 8 months and goin strong

Fantt
13-01-05, 17:32
Anything that adults can do alone or with each other which causes no harm to others not participating should be legal. Any harm they do to themselves is their own concern. That said, I still think that driving while under the influence of any inhibiting substance should be illegal. The situation gets a lot muddier when children are involved. Smoking crack may not hurt anyone other than the smoker, but adults should probably not be allowed to smoke it around children. Meth labs shouldn't be allowed in neighborhoods because of explosion risks.

Making drugs legal would cause their prices to plummet because the government created black market would be gone. This extreme lowering of prices would greatly reduce the crime associated with illegal drugs - especiallly crimes involve gangs, which would suddenly find their main source of funding cut off.

I think all drugs should be made legal for personal use by adults and the government should use a tiny percentage of the drug war monies on providing free preventative and treatment for addictions.

alexriversan
01-04-05, 16:11
those who do not need to use their brain organ, can have a good trip to amsterdam, for the purpose of smoking a couple of hash joints totally legal.

however, more intake does not produce a better high, soon all obtained is a yellow lemon tree without lemons and DROWSYNESS.

one who quit cigarettes.

ralian
28-04-05, 05:28
I don't agree with the legalisation of cannabis. It should be used only for medical purpose.
If you are healthy, why do you have to use them?
For fun? Do you exactly know the effect it has on you?

Driving while you are stoned is dangerous and can kill someone.
Just because somebody is doing, it does not mean it's OK.
Isnft it our responsibility as an adult to participate in building a safe city?

bossel
28-04-05, 07:17
Driving while you are stoned is dangerous and can kill someone.
Same goes for alcohol & a lot of medical drugs.

Tokis-Phoenix
02-04-06, 08:21
The BBC website has a lot of interesting facts on cannabis;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/cannabis/index.shtml#for_against1

"Cannabis has an effect on the heart, similar to the effects of exercise. It may be just as good for the heart as going to the gym". I never knew that :38: . I used to smoke it regually a long time ago, but gave up partly because i could and partly because i didn't see the point in doing it anymore- plus it was expensive stuff :eek2: .

Silverbackman
07-04-06, 09:03
Yes it should be legal. It isn't the government's place to decide what people do with their bodies. To certain people it maybe perfectly fine, while to others it may not be. It is up to the user to decide.

It is even more hypocritical to have alcohol and tobacco legal when cannabis isn't.

Mitsuo
07-04-06, 10:50
There are a lot of great points made here. I am going to have to say that I want it to be illegal.

I think it should only be distributed by prescription. People already abuse Alcohol. So why would we want people to have easier access to marijuana? Marijuana is already being abused, and it's not even legalized. Not to mention the many more braincells that are killed by smoking reefer than by drinking alcohol. I suggest that we limit the legalization of drugs (alcohol, and of course marijuana). Tobacco isn't a drug. Yes it can hurt you in some ways, bad teeth, bad lungs, but not even close to the same affect as marijuana. We already have people getting in accidents because of alcohol consumption. If Marijuana is legalized, that will make it more succeptible for people to use it. Thus, bringing more accidents. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, alcohol isn't. Marijuana can be a much more dangerous substance. (It can have worse affects on the brain then alcohol) Also, legalizing it will give people the ability to consume both alcohol and marijuana at the same time, making a more dangerous affect on the human body. I have heard that you can smoke it and have no affects at all, but then later in life start having hallucinations. (I have just heard that, not saying I know for sure)

To compare marijuana with tobacco, is to me, ludicrous. Seriously though, How far are we willing to go, just to have some extra "fun"?

People say, "If we make Marijuana illegal, then we should get rid of Alcohol, and tobacco", Well, then I say this. "If we allow Marijuana to become legal, then we should legalize ecstasy" Too far? Nah! If we legalize it, then I think a push for legalization for other drugs will happen. We have to remember, we want to stop drugs, not promote it.

Also, Marijuana use makes people more willing to try other drugs, like cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, I can go on. If Marijuana makes people feel good, then they will think "Hey, maybe if I take a stronger drug, then maybe I will feel even better!" I guess the same could be said for alcohol.

My point is, legalizing drugs only promotes drugs. We should try to limit our access to drugs.
We need to set a good influence for our future. Allowing the use of marijuana will only promote drug use. Besides it can make you stupid.

So, closely monitored, distributed by prescription for medical reasons is fine with me.

Tokis-Phoenix
07-04-06, 11:22
There are a lot of great points made here. I am going to have to say that I want it to be illegal.
I think it should only be distributed by prescription. People already abuse Alcohol. So why would we want people to have easier access to marijuana? Marijuana is already being abused, and it's not even legalized. Not to mention the many more braincells that are killed by smoking reefer than by drinking alcohol. I suggest that we limit the legalization of drugs (alcohol, and of course marijuana). Tobacco isn't a drug. Yes it can hurt you in some ways, bad teeth, bad lungs, but not even close to the same affect as marijuana. We already have people getting in accidents because of alcohol consumption. If Marijuana is legalized, that will make it more succeptible for people to use it. Thus, bringing more accidents. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, alcohol isn't. Marijuana can be a much more dangerous substance. (It can have worse affects on the brain then alcohol) Also, legalizing it will give people the ability to consume both alcohol and marijuana at the same time, making a more dangerous affect on the human body. I have heard that you can smoke it and have no affects at all, but then later in life start having hallucinations. (I have just heard that, not saying I know for sure)
To compare marijuana with tobacco, is to me, ludicrous. Seriously though, How far are we willing to go, just to have some extra "fun"?
People say, "If we make Marijuana illegal, then we should get rid of Alcohol, and tobacco", Well, then I say this. "If we allow Marijuana to become legal, then we should legalize ecstasy" Too far? Nah! If we legalize it, then I think a push for legalization for other drugs will happen. We have to remember, we want to stop drugs, not promote it.
Also, Marijuana use makes people more willing to try other drugs, like cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, I can go on. If Marijuana makes people feel good, then they will think "Hey, maybe if I take a stronger drug, then maybe I will feel even better!" I guess the same could be said for alcohol.
My point is, legalizing drugs only promotes drugs. We should try to limit our access to drugs.
We need to set a good influence for our future. Allowing the use of marijuana will only promote drug use. Besides it can make you stupid.
So, closely monitored, distributed by prescription for medical reasons is fine with me.



I think a point that you forget is that legalising the drug will lower its price and thus cut down on the crime associated with it- pot in america is also far stronger than the stuff we smoke over here in england, plus people in england only smoke spliffs with 50/50 pot and tobacco on average max while in america they smoke full weed ones- i am just going on what other people who have smoked pot in america have told me though and the ways that i know are most common over here. So not only do we smoke weaker stuff but we only smoke half the amount people in america do.
But anyways, thats not my point. Making it more illegal/against the law makes it more dangerous in some senses- dealers can put any price they want on it, its harder to get hold of so people who want it have to go to greater lengths to get it, dealers can also put any sort of crap in it and no one will know any better half the time. By legalising it, now only will the government be able to supervise it and its quality easier as once it is more out in the open and socially accpetable, many people that need help or have worries concerning it will be able to know what to do and feel less social pressures upon them, there will be less crime associated with the drug because prices will be more stable (and probably far lower) and people will know what to expect and want quality-wise.
In amsterdam, where cannabis is legal in england, they have very low crime rates in comparison to the rest of the country where such a drug is illegal- no, there isn't a boom in heroin addicts or thugs or people going onto harder drugs, society is stable and people work like normal addults and enjoy normal things. They don't have a low life expectancy there and the hospitals aern't any more packed full than the rest of the country. I think a lot of the fears and issues concerning pot/cannabis is blown out of proportion by the fact it is illegal and the fears, social pressures and rumors that spread in such a situation.

"44% of 16 to 29 year-olds have tried cannabis at some point in their lives. Half of them have used it in the last year

In 1998, 76% of people arrested for drugs offences in Britain were charged with possession of cannabis"

Despite it being illegal, it seems that most people that want to do it, do it regardless of it legality- which is why i think making it legal wouldn't encourage a boom in cannabis users either way. It would also save a huge amount of the polices time and money since the vast majority of arrests seem to revolve around cannabis possesion.
Most of the health problems associated with cannabis come down to the tar content of it when smoked, the and the issues with people that already have health problems or genetic issues like weak hearts or schizophrenia. Cannabis is not alone in though though, there are already many legal drugs not advised for people with mental or physical health issues, and the tar problem with cannabis can be solved by simply not smoking the stuff, but instead by taking it in some other form like eating it.
A good point made by somone on the BBC discussion area on pot;

""The death rate due to alcohol abuse alone is higher than that for all illegal drugs lumped together (as discussed on the BBC news today in a story about a tripling in liver damage due to drinking). Add to that the damage done by tobacco (how many smoking related diseases are there?) and you wonder why some drugs are legal and others are not.
Cannabis does not cause acute toxicity like alcohol and doesn't result in the alcohol-related violence seen in town centres when pubs empty. Despite this alcohol is advertised on TV, bill-boards etc and UK plc makes lots of tax money from its sale."

I think the problem we have shouldn't be with cannabis but the drug dealers.

Mitsuo
07-04-06, 12:14
I totally see your point. It's a very big concern. Drug Dealers are a major problem. But what about those dealers that grow their own? They may have a massive supply of it, and sell it to people for less money, than what the gov sells it for. Which then people would want to buy from them. If it becomes legalized, people will be growing it up the wazoo. So, how can the government supervise this? I doubt they will make growing it legal. If they do, it gives these dealers a better way of receiving it and selling it for a smaller price, also sticking whatever they want in it like you mentioned above.

Growing is another BIG problem. So, I think the marijuana is the problem.

Most likely, instead of selling the actual pot, (or cannibis), they will start selling the plant.

Tokis-Phoenix
07-04-06, 13:34
I totally see your point. It's a very big concern. Drug Dealers are a major problem. But what about those dealers that grow their own? They may have a massive supply of it, and sell it to people for less money, than what the gov sells it for. Which then people would want to buy from them. If it becomes legalized, people will be growing it up the wazoo. So, how can the government supervise this? I doubt they will make growing it legal. If they do, it gives these dealers a better way of receiving it and selling it for a smaller price, also sticking whatever they want in it like you mentioned above.
Growing is another BIG problem. So, I think the marijuana is the problem.
Most likely, instead of selling the actual pot, (or cannibis), they will start selling the plant.
If you legalise the use/possesion of cannabis(in a suitable quantity though, don't want anyone hoarding the stuff), but continue to make dealing against the law illegal, i think that would be a better situation- a bit like how you cannot sell alchohol without a license, but you can still drink alchohol if you are the right age for it.
The time and money saved by the police not having to catch users could be spent on the dealers who will remain against the law, so even if they could be able to compete with the new legal cannibis prices, they would be at far higher risk from being caught and sent to court/prison anyway, making the dealers efforts even less worthwhile.
Most dealers only deal cannabis because there is so much money to be made from it anyway, i think if it was legalised, a proper quality mark set and the prices lowered, many dealers would simply see no reason to deal the stuff anymore. And i think with legalised cannabis around, many people will prefer to buy the legal stuff legally instead of going to all the effort of buying the illegal stuff and putting themselves at risk.
So overall, i think legalising the herb would cut down on drug dealers and crime and save police time and money. I think by the government selling the drug legally, it would also be able to keep a better eye on the quality of the stuff- its very easy for drug dealers to mix all kinds of nasty things with cannabis to make it seem more potent so they can sell it for more, although this often changes the "taste"/smell or appearance, a lot of people don't know any better- poor quality cannabis is often what causes bad effects on people, and not the cannabis itself. If the government set a benchmark for good quality or acceptable cannabis i'm sure a lot less people would end up buying some the crap dealers try and sell to people. The government could also breed/alter various forms of cannibis to make them healthier or less dangerous to take :cool: .

Mitsuo
08-04-06, 22:38
I still think Marijuana is too hard to regulate. Even if the people who grow the plant and don't sell it, they can still use it without having to pay for it. How would the government regulate that? They wouldn't be able to. I also think that dealers would still be out there selling it for a lower price. Like you said, some people don't know better. Well, your right they don't. Some people wouldn't even think about the other "stuff" that the dealers might put into it, and they would go off and buy it. Maybe they prefer random crap in it. Who knows.

Marijuana is a gateway drug. If people stop getting the excitement from smoking it, they will have the urge to go into harder drugs. That's proven.

Sure that would be great for the government to make a healthier form of cannibis. But only if it's distributed through medical purposes.

I can't remember who said it, but they said that if it stays illegal, then people would want to do it even more, because they like to disobey the law. Well, I disagree. Really, it depends on the person. Another thing is that, the people who don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught will start, because they won't be worried about getting charged with possession and ticketed.
It will create more users if it's legalized.

People don't do the drug because it's against the law, they do it because it gives them an elevated feeling or even more common, Peer Pressure.

bossel
09-04-06, 03:38
Marijuana is a gateway drug.
Though there may be still some (primarily USAmerican) scientists who try to prove the contrary, marijiuana is not a gateway drug. Has been shown in several European studies (eg. Kleiber in the 90s). Only a very small amount of Marijuana users later step over to harder drugs.


Another thing is that, the people who don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught will start, because they won't be worried about getting charged with possession and ticketed.
It will create more users if it's legalized.
Then, how many more users of Marijuana are there in the Netherlands than eg. in the US? & how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)?

No-name
09-04-06, 04:23
the question is asking if I think marijuana should be legal in other countries as well as my own. I am content to let other countries make that decision for themselves. As for me, I won't smoke it whether it is legal or not. Every day it causes problems on my campus and the negative effects in poor communities like where my high school is located, are more than apparent. The number of kids as young as fourth grade that are expelled after their second posession offense is alarming. Diversion, counselling, the threat of being thrown out of school doesn't work.

Should we legalize it in the US? I would not support it. The costs in terms of family and social programs and the damage to the lives and education of children is simply not worth it just to let a few pot heads get high.

Mitsuo
10-04-06, 01:04
Though there may be still some (primarily USAmerican) scientists who try to prove the contrary, marijiuana is not a gateway drug. Has been shown in several European studies (eg. Kleiber in the 90s). Only a very small amount of Marijuana users later step over to harder drugs.
Then, how many more users of Marijuana are there in the Netherlands than eg. in the US? & how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)?

Yes, it is a gateway drug. Marijuana users have been known to become bored with the drug, so they look for a new high. Also, marijuana users usually hang out with other marijuana and/or other drug users. When those marijuana users hang out with them, they are more inclined to take the drugs offered to them, like cocaine, ecstasy, LSD.

Another thing to point out is that many teens that smoke the stuff feel that it's ok to take different drugs that's offered to them, since, to them, they haven't had any kind of problems. So they feel invincible and that nothing wrong will happen.

You say that "Only a very small amount of marijuana users later step over to harder drugs". Yeah, making it a gateway drug. You're just helping me out by saying that. Because I don't recall saying a big amount or even giving an amount of users at all that step over to harder drugs. But an amount is an amount, right? I don't care what the amount is: a small amount, a big amount. Either way, it's not good.

I said "Another thing is that, the people who don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught will start, because they won't be worried about getting charged with possession and ticketed.
It will create more users if it's legalized"

Then you said "Then, how many more users of Marijuana are there in the Netherlands than eg. in the US? & how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)?"
Don't ask me. For me to know that, I would have to ask every single person in the Netherlands and America, just to get some type of number. It probably wouldn't be accurate because people do lie about their own habits.
I can't see where you pulled out hard drugs from that though. I was just talking about marijuana.

Actually, I never said that if you smoke marijuana, that you automatically go on to hard drugs. A gateway drug is a drug that gives users a much higher potential to try other drugs. By saying gateway, I am not saying that all of them do step over. But there is a fair chance that they will.

Besides, the statement "Only a very small amount of marijuana users later step over to harder drugs" cannot be relied on. How can a statistic be made from that? There are probably millions of people doing drugs that are undocumented. If anything, that's an uneducated guess.

That stat reminds me of the Iraq war. How they say: 60% of americans disagree with the war and 40% are in favor- The funny thing is, I don't remember voting on that, or even being asked that. That 60% could have been taken from 10 people, with six disagreeing and 4 agreeing with the war.

I call it twististics. A stat purposely twisted around or exaggerated to prove a point or make it in favor in the way a group or person wants it.

bossel
10-04-06, 04:15
Marijuana users have been known to become bored with the drug, so they look for a new high.
Any statistics to support your view?


Also, marijuana users usually hang out with other marijuana and/or other drug users.
Do they? Any statistics? Here in Germany, they usually consume marijuana at home.


You say that "Only a very small amount of marijuana users later step over to harder drugs". Yeah, making it a gateway drug.
Very funny. Some 5% (IIRC) of marijuana users may try harder drugs later on, very much a gateway, yeah. I see, where you're coming from.


But an amount is an amount, right?
Nope. A broad, general statement as you make it is not justified by the numbers. But, hey, to everybody their own definition...


Don't ask me. For me to know that, I would have to ask every single person in the Netherlands and America, just to get some type of number.
Nope, just take some official statistics. Although the US statistics are probably flawed by the simple lack of data (& more probably the prejudice of the administration), this would at least give some data to "support" your point.


I can't see where you pulled out hard drugs from that though. I was just talking about marijuana.
Nope, you said it's a gateway drug. If you didn't mean hard drugs, what else?
Marijuana as a gateway drug for marijuana?


But there is a fair chance that they will.
There is a fair chance that people who drink alcohol will drive drunk & may cause an accident. Prohibition again?


If anything, that's an uneducated guess.
Just because you don't understand how representative statistics or scientific research work, doesn't mean that it's uneducated. Uneducated guess is more what you do, since you don't even have any statistics to prove your point.


A stat purposely twisted around or exaggerated to prove a point or make it in favor in the way a group or person wants it.
That's why you should look at peer reviewed scientific sources & eg. not some crappy network like Fox.

Mitsuo
11-04-06, 04:48
Any statistics to support your view?

Sure! I would love to!
-"The risk of using cocaine is estimated to be more than 104 times greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it."
(Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse)

gA 2002 SAMHSA report, Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications, concludes that the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults. The report found that 62 percent of adults age 26 or older who initiated marijuana before they were 15 years old reported that they had used cocaine in their lifetime. More than 9 percent reported they had used heroin and 53.9 percent reported non-medical use of psychotherapeutics. This compares to a 0.6 percent rate of lifetime use of cocaine, a 0.1 percent rate of lifetime use of heroin and a 5.1 percent rate of lifetime non-medical use of psychotherapeutics for those who never used marijuana. Increases in the likelihood of cocaine and heroin use and drug dependence are also apparent for those who initiate use of marijuana at any later age.g


Do they? Any statistics? Here in Germany, they usually consume marijuana at home.

Yeah, actually that's just my conclusion based on inferences in my area and observations. So sorry, no Stats there. (Yeah, I know, bad to assume that all countries are like that). But I would like to add, and this should be common sense. That users are more likely to encounter other people that sell or do other drugs. They have to buy it right? So, if they are off buying it, the dealer could say something like "Hey, if you thought that stuff was good, then you'll Love this stuff". I mean, they get the drugs from someone. That means they have a higher potential to get their hands on other drugs. Also, some people are very easily influenced by others. This is due to our social structure where all people that smoke marijuana are identified with all the other drug users, putting them higher at risk through interaction with these people.



Very funny. Some 5% (IIRC) of marijuana users may try harder drugs later on, very much a gateway, yeah. I see, where you're coming from.

The FUNNY thing is that you don't realize that there are many different statistics floating around that say something completely different. Tell me, what does IIRC mean anyway? Is that a stat from a small city in Germany?
Love the sarcasm by the way.


Nope. A broad, general statement as you make it is not justified by the numbers. But, hey, to everybody their own definition...

I say YUP. It all goes by how you look at things.


Nope, just take some official statistics. Although the US statistics are probably flawed by the simple lack of data (& more probably the prejudice of the administration), this would at least give some data to "support" your point.

Yes, Bossel. But I wouldn't say that the US statistics are more flawed than Germany or anywhere else. But, my point is that statistics are flawed, you can't live and breath every statistic that you read, even if yo think they are scholarly or credible, especially because of the statement you made "(& more probably the prejudice of the administration)". Just look at the Media, they will do what they please. Honestly though, I don't know how the media does things in Germany.



Nope, you said it's a gateway drug. If you didn't mean hard drugs, what else?
Marijuana as a gateway drug for marijuana?

Are you being Serious? Well, If I must.
This is what I said in my earlier post- "Another thing is that, the people who don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught will start, because they won't be worried about getting charged with possession and ticketed.
It will create more users if it's legalized"

OK, I will talk you through this. Right now, and in that statement, I am not and was not talking about "Gateway", nor did I have the word "Gateway" in that sentence. Ok, now that that's out of the way, read it carefully again.
I will summarize it for you. This was my comment about an earlier statement made by someone in the thread -"People will be less tempted to use because it's easier to get a hold of, and since it won't be against the law, people wouldn't smoke it because that's the real thrill of smoking it, is the fact of getting caught."-
So to shortly summarize my statement for you- I think that many people avoid doing it because it is illegal. But if it becomes legal, then more people would start because they wouldn't get in trouble. Pending an age limit and etc.

So now do you see where that statement came from?



There is a fair chance that people who drink alcohol will drive drunk & may cause an accident. Prohibition again?

You're right, there is a fair chance of that happening. But why would you want it doubled to a "Great chance" just to add in some marijuana. What next? Ecstasy? Cocaine? It's like adding more and more street debry on the roads that we drive on.
Ok, imagine if we got rid of alcohol. Do you know how many bars and business's would go out of business? Millions. It would cause an economic disaster.
Also, if it were legalized, I am not in excess to believe that the tobacco companies, once given the go ahead to commence the growing operations, wouldn't conduct business any differently with marijuana than they have with tobacco.


Just because you don't understand how representative statistics or scientific research work, doesn't mean that it's uneducated. Uneducated guess is more what you do, since you don't even have any statistics to prove your point.

Of course I know how they work, and they're a joke. To me you have to take everything, especially representative statistics with a grain of salt. But then again, according to you, I am an uneducated guesser. right? Well, I am safe to say that I am not taken very easily. Which is more of what you do.


That's why you should look at peer reviewed scientific sources & eg. not some crappy network like Fox.

Exactly. Mostly every one knows that. No one can trust the Liberal Media. But if you're implying that I look at Fox for my scientific sources then you're mistaken. Because with my post in twististics, you should have realized that I don't believe everything I hear.

So, in my conclusion to this issue, I obviously don't want it legalized in America. Sabro also made an excellent point on this subject. But if other countries want it legalized then they can be my guest, I can't stop them.

bossel
12-04-06, 03:52
-"The risk of using cocaine is estimated to be more than 104 times greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it."
Ah, good one. Sadly it's DEA (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html) propaganda. & it doesn't say very much (actually: nothing) about cause & effect. An IOM report (http://fermat.nap.edu/html/marimed/index.html) states the following:

"Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug that most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs used marijuana first.81,82 In fact, most drug users do not begin their drug use with marijuana--they begin with alcohol and nicotine, usually when they are too young to do so legally.82,90"

There is absolutely no proof for a causal relationship between smoking marijuana & later hard drug abuse.


That users are more likely to encounter other people that sell or do other drugs. [...] This is due to our social structure where all people that smoke marijuana are identified with all the other drug users, putting them higher at risk through interaction with these people.
The social gateway theory, then. Not implausible, but not a reason to prohibit marijuana use. On the contrary, if you decriminalise it & make it rather freely available (in pharmacies, eg.) the common marijuana user would probably not come into contact with drug dealers.


Tell me, what does IIRC mean anyway? Is that a stat from a small city in Germany?
You're not a frequent internet user? IIRC is the common abbreviation for "if I remember correctly."


Yes, Bossel. But I wouldn't say that the US statistics are more flawed than Germany or anywhere else.
That depends whether you have official stats by the administration (which they most probably influenced to support their "War on Drugs") or by independent institutes (independent means not under the influence of lobby groups, sometimes hard to establish, though).


Are you being Serious? Well, If I must.
This is what I said in my earlier post- "Another thing is that, the people who don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught will start, because they won't be worried about getting charged with possession and ticketed.
It will create more users if it's legalized"
& it doesn't, simple fact established by the comparable numbers in the Netherlands.

One example, THE LIMITED RELEVANCE OF DRUG POLICY: CANNABIS IN AMSTERDAM AND IN SAN FRANCISCO (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n671/a09.html?66612)
"Results. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use."


OK, I will talk you through this. Right now, and in that statement, I am not and was not talking about "Gateway", nor did I have the word "Gateway" in that sentence.[...]
So to shortly summarize my statement for you- I think that many people avoid doing it because it is illegal. But if it becomes legal, then more people would start because they wouldn't get in trouble. Pending an age limit and etc.
So now do you see where that statement came from?
from here
Marijuana is a gateway drug. If people stop getting the excitement from smoking it, they will have the urge to go into harder drugs. That's proven.
If more people use marijuana when it's legalised (as you claim) & if marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs (as you claim), then the use of hard drugs would also significantly increase.
"So now do you see where that [question] came from?"


You're right, there is a fair chance of that happening. But why would you want it doubled to a "Great chance" just to add in some marijuana. What next? Ecstasy? Cocaine? It's like adding more and more street debry on the roads that we drive on.
Only if the numbers of users were to increase which is far from proven.


Ok, imagine if we got rid of alcohol. Do you know how many bars and business's would go out of business? Millions. It would cause an economic disaster.
Then, economy is more important to you when it comes to alcohol, but not in case of marijuana. It would create a lot of jobs as well. Just look at the Netherlands with all those "coffee" shops.


No one can trust the Liberal Media.
You shouldn't trust any media, but trust is not necessary.

Mitsuo
15-04-06, 03:47
Bossel said: "You're not a frequent internet user? IIRC is the common abbreviation for "if I remember correctly.""
Haha, yeah you're right, I'm not a frequent internet user. The only ones that I really know are LOL, BRB, AND OMG.
My bad dude, I apologize for that stupid remark. :p
So with me, try to avoid internet slang. I am Internet slang challenged. :blush:
Bossel said: "Ah, good one. Sadly it's DEA propaganda. & it doesn't say very much (actually: nothing) about cause & effect. An IOM report states the following:
"Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug that most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs used marijuana first.81,82 In fact, most drug users do not begin their drug use with marijuana--they begin with alcohol and nicotine, usually when they are too young to do so legally.82,90"
There is absolutely no proof for a causal relationship between smoking marijuana & later hard drug abuse."
Well, any stat can be called propaganda. How do you know that the sources you get it from aren't in it for personal gain? Like the DEA for example.
I hope you can understand what I'm talking about, when it comes to stats. All these facts and stats are quite meaningless to me. Because, I can go through several different sources, and many sources would say exactly what you're saying, and the other sources would say exactly what I am saying. But the question is, can you determine what is propaganda and what isn't?
Bossel said- "The social gateway theory, then. Not implausible, but not a reason to prohibit marijuana use. On the contrary, if you decriminalise it & make it rather freely available (in pharmacies, eg.) the common marijuana user would probably not come into contact with drug dealers."
Very true. But by legalizing it, it would put people at ease, and be more willing to try it. I mean, it's bad enough that people are getting drunk and hurting themselves and others. Why legalize another thing that can do that? It just gives people more options. Instead of getting alcohol, they can get some marijuana too? By legalizing marijuana only promotes drug use. It can give people the wrong idea.
Also by legalizing it, it would cause a huge economical impact on the United States. The Illegal drug trade is 1/5 of the US economy. It would hurt our economy, because it takes all that money out of circulation.
Bossel said- "If more people use marijuana when it's legalised (as you claim) & if marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs (as you claim), then the use of hard drugs would also significantly increase.
"So now do you see where that [question] came from?""
Hmm, nice depth. I wasn't really thinking about that when making that comment. But......
Yes, I do claim that, as do many other professionals and scientists. But too bad I can't give you any stats to prove that, because to you, I would only be giving you propaganda. I would also say that many people that I know who HAVE tried marijuana, also claim that they wouldn't have tried harder drugs if it weren't for marijuana. They say that it made them wonder. So my reality is telling me it is a gateway drug. It also depends on the person. Some people have an addictive personality. Wouldn't you agree?
Bossel said- "Only if the numbers of users were to increase which is far from proven."
Perhaps in the netherlands, and europe. I propose that the people in America are more easily influenced than in any other country. Have you seen the number of girls here walking around with tiny dogs like they were an accessory? All thanks to Paris Hilton. (Not saying it's a bad thing, but annoying as hell). If one celebrity or even a role model is seen smoking this stuff. Then guess who follows.

Kara_Nari
15-04-06, 03:55
I just wanted to pop by and say that I think Marijuana should be decriminalised in each country. The punishment for being caught with any amount is very harsh here in Korea. However I am glad in a way that its so bloody hard to get here, because it helped me to stop.
If they make marijuana legal, its not really such a big deal. People can still choose if they want to do it, like cigarettes and alchohol. Just because they're legal doesnt mean every Tom, Dick and Harry are out there getting drunk or smoking heavily.

When I took drugs, it wasnt about 'replacing' the high that marijuana gave me, it was more of an alternative for a different feeling.

kragoh
19-04-06, 12:58
People already abuse Alcohol. So why would we want people to have easier access to marijuana? Marijuana is already being abused, and it's not even legalized.
So you have no point. Those who want to use it do it anyway. Everyone already knows it is not particularly harmful.

Not to mention the many more braincells that are killed by smoking reefer than by drinking alcohol.
No brain cells are killed by THC. Evidence suggests the contrary, that it has a protective effect.

Tobacco isn't a drug.
Nicotine is a drug. The above is like saying cannabis isn't a drug.

If Marijuana is legalized, that will make it more succeptible for people to use it.
It is already easily available to anyone that wants it. Shortages are effectively non-existent.

Thus, bringing more accidents. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, alcohol isn't. Marijuana can be a much more dangerous substance. (It can have worse affects on the brain then alcohol)
It is significantly less likely to lead to accidents. It only marginally impairs physical co-ordination at normal doses and has been found to have almost no effect on driving ability. As the dose increases so does the impairment, but we're talking about orders of magnitude less impairment than that induced by alcohol.

Also, legalizing it will give people the ability to consume both alcohol and marijuana at the same time, making a more dangerous affect on the human body.
I'm glad to hear that prohibition makes this impossible. You do understand and realise that cannabis is readily available anywhere, anytime to anyone that wants it. Not really any different to it being illegal except the price is a bit higher and it wastes a lot police time and resources.
If alcohol is having the dangerous effect you mention shouldn't we ban it?

I have heard that you can smoke it and have no affects at all, but then later in life start having hallucinations. (I have just heard that, not saying I know for
Complete rubbish.
I heard the moon was made out of cheese, then Wallace and Gromit went there and confirmed it.

Seriously though, How far are we willing to go, just to have some extra "fun"?
As far as I have to. It is my choice. Do you lecture rock climbers about how dangerous it is? What about skydivers? And people who ride bicycles? You can get badly hurt doing those things and people do all the time. It really is time our government did something about this and banned these dangerous activities to protect people from themselves.

People say, "If we make Marijuana illegal, then we should get rid of Alcohol, and tobacco",
The government pretense is that some drugs are illegal because they are dangerous. The argument immediately falls apart because they allow, and make lots of money off, two very dangerous drugs that kill millions. And no I don't support the idea these two drugs should be illegal, people have every right to do themselves in.

Well, then I say this. "If we allow Marijuana to become legal, then we should legalize ecstasy" Too far? Nah!
Absolutely correct, methampetamine, MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, 2C-B, everything, should be legally available to adults.

If we legalize it, then I think a push for legalization for other drugs will happen.
I certainly hope so. Maybe my children or grandchildren will live in a saner world where we don't have goverment thugs harassing people for their choice of chemical entertainment.

We have to remember, we want to stop drugs, not promote it.
We don't, there is no reason why we would. We accept that people, being human, are going to want to take drugs and experience things. What we want is to minimise any direct harm that might occur.

Also, Marijuana use makes people more willing to try other drugs,
Please not that old rubbish again.
Some people who eat popcorn go on to eat chocolate. Popcorn is a gateway snack.

"Hey, maybe if I take a stronger drug,
Maybe, no big deal. There's no real harm in taking some cocaine instead of having a beer. Maybe taking LSD is your Saturday afternoon kick while others are out drinking and being hooligans. Go for it.

My point is, legalizing drugs only promotes drugs.
They're self-promoting already. Only conformists actually believe the drivel we get fed by the anti-drug propaganda machine.
And let's not forget that anti-drug campaigners are the biggest promoters of drugs. They go from school to school telling children about a wide range of interesting chemicals of which they had not previously heard. They also emphasise that taking them is bad and naughty. This is remarkably effective, at telling teenagers about all their options and encouraging them to give them a try.

We should try to limit our access to drugs.
We absolutely should, that's why they should be made legal. It is easier for a 12 year old to buy heroin, than a light beer. Because purveyors of illegal substances don't ask for ID, your local alcohol (drug) dealer has to have a license and ask for ID.

Besides it can make you stupid.
It can't.

So, closely monitored, distributed by prescription for medical reasons is fine with me.
And the black market will continue. Adults will exercise their right to make their own choice about whether to use drugs and which drugs to use. No-one cares what the government thinks.

They may have a massive supply of it, and sell it to people for less money, than what the gov sells it for
So what? Same thing as people who operate illegal alcohol production facilities for the purpose of sale. The average person would rather buy from a reliable source. Anyway your scenario of low-priced under the counter cannabis immediately eliminates the welathy violent drug kingpin. We'd be left with a few entrepeneurs making some money on the side. And why take the risk of arrest and jail time when you can just get a cannabis license?

people will be growing it up the wazoo.
And? I can brew my own beer, wine and spirits. I can even give it to my friends at a party, but I cannot sell it.

So, how can the government supervise this?
They shouldn't, it is none of their business, unless it is offered for sale. And then their only concerns are that you have paid for your license, that they are getting their taxes and that you're not selling to minors.

I still think Marijuana is too hard to regulate
In which case you're arguing against yourself. If it can't be regulated then criminalization is a de facto waste of resources.

Marijuana is a gateway drug.
A myth. Long debunked. Most people start with alcohol, therefore it should be labelled the gateway drug.

If people stop getting the excitement from smoking it
Never happens. There is near zero tolerance even amongst heavy users who have been smoking for decades.

Another thing is that, the people who don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught will start
History has shown that the chances of getting caught are somewhere near zero. Even in countries where the penalties are severe people go ahead and try it anyway. Anyone who wanted to just try it could do so with absolute safety.

Either way, it's not good.
It is fine, since in general recreational drugs are not exceptionally harmful.

A gateway drug is a drug that gives users a much higher potential to try other drugs.
In order to prove your point you would have to demonstrate that those people would not otherwise have used other drugs. Most people try cannabis first because it is more easily available than anything else. On the other hand I've met numerous people who tried LSD, cocaine or heroin first, simply because those were the drugs most readily available when they decided to explore chemically-induced altered states other than alcohol. Strictly speaking alcohol and in some cases tobacco was the gateway drug. For some it can even be caffeine.

A stat purposely twisted around or exaggerated to prove a point or make it in favor in the way a group or person wants it.
It is called a sample. You can never test every instance so you test a sample. The sample has to be carefully chosen so as not to skew the results. Basic statistics really.

kragoh
19-04-06, 13:06
Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIDA? You may as well quote the Tooth Fairy. She does much more reliable research on the subject.

The researchers at NIDA, particularly Ricaurte and Nahas have been caught lying, fabricating results and doing sloppy research so often it isn't even funny anymore. At any real research institution they would have been fired a long time ago. They and NIDA are a disgrace to science.

kragoh
19-04-06, 13:22
people in england only smoke spliffs with 50/50 pot and tobacco on average
A particularly stupid and bizarre thing to do. You're much better off sticking with straight cannabis.

pot in america is also far stronger than the stuff we smoke over here in england
That is just nonsense. Top quality cannabis is grown within and imported into the UK. Although hash is more common because it is easier to smuggle.

we only smoke half the amount people in america do
Not true. You smoke the same amount of cannabis and you smoke a whole lot of tobacco as well. People who don't add in tobacco simply make smaller joints. And no-one ever feels compelled to finish a joint - if there is too much it gets put away for another time.
Ignoring the drug laws may well be the most widespread flouting of the law by ordinary people ever seen. It makes the average, otherwise law-abiding, person view the police as scum who'll go out of their way to ruin a person's life over something as arbitrary as choosing the wrong intoxicant. Depending where you live the uniformed police are often fairly easy-going about small quantities of cannabis, MDMA and such, but member of narcotics squads of invariably genuine scum of the earth, lower than the lowest, foulest drug dealer.

drug dealers to mix all kinds of nasty things with cannabis to make it seem more potent so they can sell it for more
Like? You can cut other drugs to make them go further, but there isn't much you do with cannabis, except maybe mix in other plants, and anyone with even half a brain would be able to tell the difference.

heliobacter
19-04-06, 14:13
... Tobacco isn't a drug. Yes it can hurt you in some ways, bad teeth, bad lungs, but not even close to the same affect as marijuana.

noo, nooo nicotine's just a harmless neurotoxin.
do you have a clue how many people die every year of tobacco consumption?
how many legs my father as a MD has to cut off every year?

Estimated Annual Risk of Death Selected Causes, USA, 1989

========================Annual deaths
===================Per million exposed persons
Smoking---------------------------7000
Alcohol-----------------------------541
Traffic accidents--------------------187
Drowning----------------------------22
Passive smoking----------------------19
All other air pollutants-----------------6
Lightning-----------------------------0.5

Source : United States Surgeon-General, 1989

and do you know how many people were killed by cannabis so far? NO ONE.
to reach the lethal dosage of THC, you would have to smoke tons of grass, what's physically impossible.


If Marijuana is legalized, that will make it more succeptible for people to use it.

how make something more susceptible that can be grown easily in one's backyard? :-) btw, seeds can be bought practically everywhere, legally (don't know how things in the US are, but i guess you've got growshops too.


Marijuana is a hallucinogen, alcohol isn't. Marijuana can be a much more dangerous substance. (It can have worse affects on the brain then alcohol)

erm... yes. marijuana is a hallucinogen. :okashii: maybe i just don't have as good stuff as you, but i haven't had a single hallucination, and i smoke regularily on weekends for about 3 years now :blush:


I have heard that you can smoke it and have no affects at all, but then later in life start having hallucinations. (I have just heard that, not saying I know for sure)

ok, now you mix it up with LSD, i'm fine with that. it's the same thing anyway.:okashii:
sorry but i think you don't know anything about this drug. you obviously neither have experience with it, nor have you tried to do some serious research, besides flicks like "reefer madness" from the 1930s

don't get me wrong, i don't want to play it down in any way. THC consumers can develop a strong MENTAL addiction, and i've seen quite a few friends who have changed in a bad way when they started smoking weed. of course it is a drug and therefore shouldn't be taken lightly.

but in my humble opionion, alcohol is WAY worse. i've had 2 mental blackouts in my life, and both because i've drunk too much. the next day, friends told me what i did, things like chatting girls up, although a had a girlfriend i really loved, called my best friends idiots and so on.
i've NEVER did anything i regretted the next day when i was stoned.

just my 2 cents, no offense meant :cool:

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:03
Besides, it's also proven that a glass of red wine a day is good for health.
Except those heath benefits do not require the ingestion of red wine. The healthy parts are available from numerous sources, therefore it is a poor excuse for drinking wine.
Responsibility
Is it not likely that Americans have no concept of personal responsibility because such an attitude is encouraged? The government always goes on about how people should take responsibility, but then members of the same government are unable to own up to their own crimes, they interfere everywhere - forgetting, as people mostly do, that freedom is all about risk and responsibility - and they do nothing about a blame society where everything is always someone or something else's fault - drugs made me do, I wasn't warned that coffee is hot, etc.
There is no logic to the war on some drugs. In the US much of it stems from the warped ideas of puritanism and its general hatred of pleasure.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:06
I didn't know cannabis cigarettes had more tar than tobacco, and therefore was more harmful for lungs.
It is well known. It isn't as simple as that though. Firstly cannabis users smoke far less than tobacco smokers. Secondly THC is an anti-inflammatory so cannabis smoke does not cause the extended inflammation of the lungs seen in tobacco smokers. It has been found that cannabis smokers and those who smoke both cannabis and tobacco show age-related decline in lung function equal to that of non-smokers. Both show higher incidence of lung cancer, the risk being related to relative amounts of tar ingested. Based on the latter the average cannabis smoker will still have much lower risk of lung cancer.
There is no need to pretend cannabis is safe. Life isn't safe. Telling people the possible risks is sufficient. I take part in full contact fighting and motorcycle racing, both dangerous activities, but I know the risks and they are acceptable to me.

I believe that magic mushrooms and opium are much more dangerous. Hallucinogenes (including LSD, mescaline, ecstasy, magic mushrooms...) should definitely be banned as they can leave someone mentally disturbed for life (if they have a "bad trip"). One time is enough if you are unlucky. Never even try.
The probabilities are very, very low. Banning them makes no difference. Obviously people are using these drugs anyway so we have gained nothing other than criminalising a fairly harmless activity.
Nothing wrong with researching this, studying those rare people with a genetic predisposition to psychosis who have it triggered by hallucinogenic drugs to see if we can find common factors. With the drugs legal you could visit your doctor to be tested to see if you're one of those rare people. Or you could just take the chance. It's a calculated risk, but what in life isn't?
Bad trips are something else, a traumatic experience, but people get over them. Usually quite quickly. Education will dramatically reduce bad trips - users who know how to deal with them when they start do not have truly scary experiences. It is like taking a painkiller when you feel the first inklings of a headache, rather than waiting until it takes hold.
And you can turf MDMA (ecstasy) out of that list. It isn't a genuine hallucinogen.

Opium, morphine and heroine are painkiller and give a sensation of extreme well feeling, but have terrible side-effect and dependency. If sex is addictive (and it is), then heroine is 10 times more. Can you imagine quitting sex for the rest of your life ? Once you've tried heroine, it's the same, you can't imagine not trying again. Don't even think of touching it.
The addictiveness of heroin is wildly exaggerated. Sex isn't addictive. Sex addiction is an invention not a real addiction.

Can you imagine quitting sex for the rest of your life? Once you've tried heroine, it's the same, you can't imagine not trying again. Don't even think of touching it.
Hardly a valid comparison. Sex is a biological drive which has nothing to do with addiction. Even if you've never had sex your body is going to tell you that you should.
Once you've tried heroin it is quite easy to imagine not trying it again. Never listen to current or ex-junkies. Every ex-addict and current addict will tell you whatever drug they use is super-mega-addictive and impossible to quit. What about the majority of users who quietly go about their lives using these same drugs regularly with no trouble whatsoever? You might as well take advice on alcohol from an alcohol junkie.

Cocaines and amphetamines are stimulants. They make you feel like a super human, boost up intelligence and physical strength and you never feel tired... until the effect stops and the reverse is happening. If you don't continue the intakes, you'll feel miserably depressed, devoid of energy and sullen. That's how dependency starts. Notice that it's more physical, while heroine's was very psychological.
If you don't continue you go to sleep. You won't feel miserably depressed, just tired. Much of the down is due to lack of food and sleep. To get an idea of how you might feel try staying awake for 48 hours eating and drinking almost nothing. Throw in some vigorous physical activity too.
Used sensibly amphetamine, specifically d-amphetamine (tradename Dexedrine) is a very useful drug. Problems were also much lower when you could easily get it from your local doctor. Once it became hard to get legally trade went underground, the authorities spent time and money trying to crush it, dl-methamphetamine took over, offering a higher profit margin, and eventually the authorities through their continuing efforts managed to get that replaced with d-methamphetamine. So today the only amphetamine you'll typically find on the street is the strongest of them all, d-methampetamine. It is also the hardest to use sensibly. That's prohibition for you. Happens every time.
The war on drugs has been very expensive, and ultimately completely pointless. In 30 years the authorities have made absolutely no progress in stopping drug use. It doesn't surprise me. Taking drugs is just part of human nature.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:14
Doctors usually come back with the assertion that pot has too many side effects...By comparison, pot's side effects are almost minimal.

They also like to harp on about how it makes you spaced out etc. They've obviously never been on any serious medications of any kind, never mind psychiatric medication. Even your basic SSRI or tricyclic can dull your mind to the point where by comparison being stoned is the height of mental nimbleness. You actually have no idea how much those medications mess up your head until you come off them.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:15
but pointing out health hazards and trying to reduce the number of potential patients are no infringement of our personal freedom.
I don't see anyone saying that is infringement. They're welcome to educate, but banning is not acceptable. I pay my taxes too. Can I come scrutinise your life to make sure you aren't engaging in any activities that might cost the health system money? You might be playing a sport that can cause injury, or watching too much TV, eating foods of which I disapprove, etc. Furthermore smokers and drinkers pay extra tax. In fact it has been repeatedly shown that the government enjoys a nett profit. Users of other drugs cost the country money, but that is the government's choice. They have chosen to incur a nett loss on other recreational drugs. Tough luck, don't expect me to support them or care about their whining about what drugs cost the country.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:23
Smoking crack may not hurt anyone other than the smoker, but adults should probably not be allowed to smoke it around children. Meth labs shouldn't be allowed in neighborhoods because of explosion risks.

greatly reduce the crime associated with illegal drugs - especiallly crimes involve gangs, which would suddenly find their main source of funding cut off.

I think all drugs should be made legal for personal use by adults and the government should use a tiny percentage of the drug war monies on providing free preventative and treatment for addictions.

Smoking crack around children would not do them any direct harm. The amount of smoke produced is even close to a few puffs on a cigarette. Unless we're going to ban parents from smoking we can't interfere with other drugs. I'm against interferring with parents in this fashion.

The meth lab explosion risk is actually quite small. It happens very, very seldom. Even in a suburban neighbourhood and trained chemist would never make a mistake if they have access to the right equipment. Blame the government for any explosions that do occur.

Legalise prostitution as well and most gangs will have the two main sources of income axed. They'd be left with protection rackets which don't do well if people are also allowed to defend themselves by shooting the scumbags who threaten them.

The drug war costs the US alone $30 billion plus per year. Take that back, empty the prisons and add taxes from drug sales, and we'd have more than adequate funding for education, treatment and all those social programs that allegedly cost too much money (millionaires are always moaning about how tax they pay). There'd probably even be money left over for tax cuts. Of course all gangsters in the DEA would have to get a real job which doesn't involve violence, theft and general harassment (the DEA are just gangsters with badges).

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:30
Every day it causes problems on my campus and the negative effects in poor communities like where my high school is located, are more than apparent. The number of kids as young as fourth grade that are expelled after their second posession offense is alarming. Diversion, counselling, the threat of being thrown out of school doesn't work.

Every day?

The number of kids? Well give us that number. Are students caught with alcohol also expelled or is this just a version of the drug war discrimination against some? Not really any different to religious persecution.

What would happen if we switched things around and you could buy alcohol from the guy on the shady corner, but cannabis required ID? Are these children using cannabis because it is easier to get than alcohol or just because they prefer it. I'd definitely rather deal with constantly stoned children than constantly drunk ones.

That aside you blame cannabis without evidence. In my community alcohol destroys families. Let me re-phrase that, people who abuse alcohol destroy their families. It isn't really the alcohol because the vast majority of users in this same community handle their alcohol use. This applies to all drugs, every single one.


The costs in terms of family and social programs and the damage to the lives and education of children is simply not worth it just to let a few pot heads get high.

The cost is basically zero. And those 'potheads' are getting high anyway. I guess you like gangsters shooting people in your neighbourhood. Me I want them stopped, and ending this idiotic war on drugs is part of the solution.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:31
Isnft it our responsibility as an adult to participate in building a safe city?
No. Life is dangerous, get used to it. On the other hand their is no evidence that drug use in itself inherently makes things significantly more dangerous. Worried about drunken fights at bars? Then don't go. Worried about drug use at clubs? Stay home where you can be protected from the world.

If you are healthy, why do you have to use them?
For fun? Do you exactly know the effect it has on you?
Why should anyone care? There are a large variety of fun activities that are very dangerous. They're still fun and so far the interferring nannies in government have not yet proposed making them illegal. Should they ever be dumb enough to push their interference further I will gladly take up arms against them.
Frankly the majority of drug users are intelligent hard-working, well-paid people you'd never even be able to guess were drug users. They have families, friends and will live long, happy lives.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:42
the person who feels they can't live without the drug, but can't come up with the money legally, to buy it. I don't want to be their victim when they steal, rob, or even kill to get the money they need.

So you're in favour of legalization then. Not so much cannabis of course since it is relatively cheap and easy to acquire, but the more expensive drugs that though being illegal and hence overpriced lead to crimes such as robbery.

I'm not to sure I want to depend on someone who is stoned to provide a service for me either? Would you want a paramedic trying to save your life or driving you in an ambulance at high speed while stoned?
But they can do these things on alcohol then? Legalizing a drug does not suddenly give someone permission to perform dangerous activities while intoxicated. Statements like the above are exactly like the scare tactics used by the anti-drug mob. The majority of users of illegal drugs are ordinary people just like you.

I think if pot were as available as alcohol we would double our problems we now have with booze alone!
It's already as available, perhaps more so since there are no real restrictions on its sale. Not the kind of restrictions there are for alcohol.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:44
It is smoking after all, which has a secondhand smoking problem, can be inhaled by children or infants.

Secondhand smoke has never been demonstrated to be seriously harmful. Furthermore cannabis smokers smoke miniscule quantities compared.


I agree w/ Frank on not wanting to be treated or have a ride by a stoner.

Rather a stoned person than a drunk person in both cases. A stoned person has far superior co-ordination to a drunk person and is much better able to stay sharply focussed. Research has shown that it hardly impairs driving ability except at high doses. Low doses can actually increase the ability to focus on a single activity, particularly simple activities like driving (yes, driving is a very trivial activity). If someone is stoned enough to actually impair their ability, then it can de facto not be hidden that they are intoxicated.

But where do people get the idea that legalizing a drug gives blanket permission for use in all circumstances. What complete nonsense.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:47
On the contrary, you are one of the rare, smart human that care for your body.
I eat healthy, I play hard, I work hard, I party hard. One way or another, sooner or later, I am going to be dead, a rotting corpse. I keep my body tuned just like my motorcycle, and I put it to good use. When I die I won't say you know my body is in such good condition I'm glad I kept it safely locked away, no I'll say I had fun and I wouldn't undo any of it.
Holier than thou people are always annoying.

Using for any other reason is an addiction
Not true. You might as well say motorcars are for transport and any other use is an addiction.
The underground black market make bootleg alchoholic beverage with: cheap perfume,window cleaner, shoe polish, and other toxic ingredients.
Complete rubbish. The only involvement organised crime has with alcohol and tobacco is stealing shipments for resale and smuggling so they can pocket the money meant for taxes.

kragoh
19-04-06, 17:57
OAt least in this way, he can receive info on the potency and effects of the drug, and not just buy anything in random out in the street that he has no idea how it has been "cut" or with wat.

It has been shown that users are more cautious and responsible when they can accurately titrate their dose. Knowing exactly what you're taking and how much eliminates the standard scenario with street drugs where the user not being sure of the potency will generally take too much rather than too little so as not to waste their expensive drugs. Being cheap and knowing the dosage allows a user to cheaply and easily experiment to find exactly what dose works. And most drugs have essentially no long-term tolerance unless used daily. If used a few times a month a person can use the same dose for years.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:00
noo, nooo nicotine's just a harmless neurotoxin.
do you have a clue how many people die every year of tobacco consumption?
how many legs my father as a MD has to cut off every year?

I wouldn't call it a neurotoxin. It is a vasoconstrictor. Another reason why it causes more problems in the lungs than THC, the latter is a bronchodilator so it opens the lungs helping them to clean out the tar. Nicotine will constrict blood vessels all over the body whereas THC does not.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:04
In Holland we have government officials that have admitted they have used drugs in the past and nobody thinks it's a big deal.
Good for them. I can respect that. Can't respect high and mighty moralising twits.

You're pretty pathetic if you need alcohol to have a good time
How can you judge other people's brain chemistry? Or what they choose to do for fun. It is seldom about needing to ingest alcohol to have a good time, but rather that a darn good time becomes an even better time when everyone gets relaxed. Enter alcohol. Or MDMA.
Aren't people who have brain chemistry that requires serotonin boosters just pathetic? How can they need to change their brain chemistry to feel better?
I presume you do not use any chemicals for non-medicinal purposes, i.e. specifically prescribed for a particular ailment. I'm including caffeine.

to smoke to keep your nerves in order
It is a rare person that does not have some nervous habit. People who smoke hold their cigarettes, others have to resort to other measures.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:06
how to deal with hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, "new drugs")
What makes a drug hard? Is LSD a soft drug? Why not? Is alcohol a hard drug? Why not? Fact is that all drugs cause no major problems for a majority of users. That even applies to the heavily demonised heroin. Sure we always hear about the nuts who trashed their lives, but never about the banker who takes it a few times a week.
New drugs? What has being new to do with anything? Some 'new' drugs aren't new at all. MDMA and MDA being prime examples of two old drugs that enjoyed a resurgence in popularity. Are they hard drugs?
The whole distinction is pointless. All we need do is keep tabs on how many people use and how many get into trouble. Easier when it is legal and people don't have to lie. Then we can investigate what treatments help. Methadone was a dumb idea in general, but there are the very rare people that it does help. 12 step programs have a dismal success rate, but that aside abstinence is the only solution for some abusers. For others learning moderation is the ticket. We also have to learn that an abuser of one drug will not necessarily abuse any others - rehab centres typically try to force their clients to quit all substances (except hypocritcally often not tobacco) - this increases their failure rate because they re-inforce the nonsense that all drugs and drug use are the same.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:09
They say the crime rates for people on weed is low, but they don't have any tests that can prove whether or not you've smoked up
Users without blood, I would never have guessed it.
Cannabis and other drug users are unlikely to commit crimes other than breaking stupid drug laws. People who do take drugs and then commit crimes aren't made to do so because they're on drugs. You really think some psycho gang member wired on methampetamine would have stayed at home and baked cookies if he had been sober?
If you've ever compared the behaviour of alcohol intoxicated and cannabis intoxicated people you will quickly see which group is likely to behave in an anti-social manner. It is invariably the alcohol intoxicated group.
Of course they can test for cannabis. Anyway roadside tests should be impairment tests not blood concentration tests. I have friends with enough alcohol tolerance that they can walk a straight line when I can no longer even sit up. Same build and same amount of alcohol, but they drink regularly and I don't. We've even tested ourselves in these circumstances and we both have similar blood-alcohol levels, their brains just don't respond as much.
I don't care whether cannabis or any other drug has medicinal uses, the government is way out of line telling people what they can and can't put into their bodies for their own amusement.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:10
Singapore is for me the pinnacle of eagerly conformist society, ready to please the West by adopting its concepts and moral to extremes
I don't know the origins of the attitude in Singapore, but it is fundamentally a police state. They spy on their citizens and arrest people for speaking against the government. They interfere in every aspect of life. The only reason they aren't declared public enemy number one is that they happen to be capitalists. It is OK to be a police state as long it isn't communist.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:13
Isn't cannabis used in combination with tabacco?

Not by sane people. The English do it. However if you must smoke tobacco you're better off also using cannabis, either simultaneously or at other times. The anti-inflammatory affect of THC helps speed healing of damage caused by smoking.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:18
I also think it would help the situation, take for example prostitution in the U.S. and then prostitution that is being helped out by amsterdam, etc. Look at how much more control they have over the situation when it is helped instead of banned.

Prostitution is kept illegal in the US due to idiotic puritanical thinking combined with basic misogyny. In other countries where it is illegal it is so largely due to misogyny. Only women get hurt by prostitution being illegal. They are the ones who get beaten up, raped, murdered and have most of their income stolen. And for most of history men were making the laws and it served them to keep women down.

As with the m0r0n-inspired drug laws there are signs that civilisation will prevail and remove these disgusting laws from our world. Perhaps not in my lifetime.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:36
And then there was this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm

Their results are more extreme than that found by other researchers. We will have to wait to see whether other researchers find the same thing. It is however not as simple as tar and carcinogens. Not to mention that three joints a day is a lot. It also makes a difference that cigarette smokers are exposing their lungs to tar nearly constantly or at least at very close intervals.

It is also difficult to see how they go from 50% more to three joints being equivalent to 20 cigarettes which is nearly 700% more. The 50% more tallies reasonably with other research, but then they appear to slip into hysterical conjecture.

This is due to increased amounts of THC - or delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the major active chemical compound - in the cannabis consumed today.

If anything this should be reducing the damage because people actually smoke less. You don't smoke more because it is stronger. It is no different to alcohol - when I drink a beer it is usually 340ml, but when I have a whiskey it is 30ml. Same applies to cannabis.

Inhaling deeply and holding it in your lungs is a bad idea, although many tobacco smokers do it too. Cannabis is cheap enough that there is no need to try to maximise the effect from a single inhalation.

However to make it safer it should obviously be made legal. It will get even cheaper, paraphenalia can be encouraged and sold openly.

Anyway I wouldn't put too much faith in BBC reporting without proper references. It wouldn't be the first time they've published a ludicrous scare story with no reliable research behind it.

Basic fact, smoking anything is not going to be good for your lungs. Nothing wrong with telling people that.

The proper way to research this is to follow people who smoke only or almost exclusively cannabis for decades to see what happens.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:57
And not just make you do stupid things, but it can make you stupid. :p :p

Afraid not, it can't make you stupid.

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:57
haha, yeah I've met quite a few people who smoke it waaaay too much and live their lives in a kind of constant trance. Maybe that's going a bit too far :?
Imagine if they drank alcohol all day?

kragoh
19-04-06, 18:58
And then there was this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm
And then there was this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2120441.stm

kragoh
19-04-06, 19:07
I didn't know cannabis cigarettes had more tar than tobacco, and therefore was more harmful for lungs.

It is well known. It isn't as simple as that though. Firstly cannabis users smoke far less than tobacco smokers. Secondly THC is an anti-inflammatory so cannabis smoke does not cause the extended inflammation of the lungs seen in tobacco smokers. It has been found that cannabis smokers and those who smoke both cannabis and tobacco show age-related decline in lung function equal to that of non-smokers. Both show higher incidence of lung cancer, the risk being related to relative amounts of tar ingested. Based on the latter the average cannabis smoker will still have much lower risk of lung cancer.

There is no need to pretend cannabis is safe. Life isn't safe. Telling people the possible risks is sufficient. I take part in full contact fighting and motorcycle racing, both dangerous activities, but I know the risks and they are acceptable to me.


I believe that magic mushrooms and opium are much more dangerous. Hallucinogenes (including LSD, mescaline, ecstasy, magic mushrooms...) should definitely be banned as they can leave someone mentally disturbed for life (if they have a "bad trip"). One time is enough if you are unlucky. Never even try.

The probabilities are very, very low. Banning them makes no difference. Obviously people are using these drugs anyway so we have gained nothing other than criminalising a fairly harmless activity.

Nothing wrong with researching this, studying those rare people with a genetic predisposition to psychosis who have it triggered by hallucinogenic drugs to see if we can find common factors. With the drugs legal you could visit your doctor to be tested to see if you're one of those rare people. Or you could just take the chance. It's a calculated risk, but what in life isn't?

Bad trips are something else, a traumatic experience, but people get over them. Usually quite quickly. Education will dramatically reduce bad trips - users who know how to deal with them when they start do not have truly scary experiences. It is like taking a painkiller when you feel the first inklings of a headache, rather than waiting until it takes hold.

And you can turf MDMA (ecstasy) out of that list. It isn't a genuine hallucinogen.


Opium, morphine and heroine are painkiller and give a sensation of extreme well feeling, but have terrible side-effect and dependency. If sex is addictive (and it is), then heroine is 10 times more. Can you imagine quitting sex for the rest of your life ? Once you've tried heroine, it's the same, you can't imagine not trying again. Don't even think of touching it.

The addictiveness of heroin is wildly exaggerated. Sex isn't addictive. Sex addiction is an invention not a real addiction.


Can you imagine quitting sex for the rest of your life? Once you've tried heroine, it's the same, you can't imagine not trying again. Don't even think of touching it.

Hardly a valid comparison. Sex is a biological drive which has nothing to do with addiction. Even if you've never had sex your body is going to tell you that you should.

Once you've tried heroin it is quite easy to imagine not trying it again. Never listen to current or ex-junkies. Every ex-addict and current addict will tell you whatever drug they use is super-mega-addictive and impossible to quit. What about the majority of users who quietly go about their lives using these same drugs regularly with no trouble whatsoever? You might as well take advice on alcohol from an alcohol junkie.


Cocaines and amphetamines are stimulants. They make you feel like a super human, boost up intelligence and physical strength and you never feel tired... until the effect stops and the reverse is happening. If you don't continue the intakes, you'll feel miserably depressed, devoid of energy and sullen. That's how dependency starts. Notice that it's more physical, while heroine's was very psychological.

If you don't continue you go to sleep. You won't feel miserably depressed, just tired. Much of the down is due to lack of food and sleep. To get an idea of how you might feel try staying awake for 48 hours eating and drinking almost nothing. Throw in some vigorous physical activity too.

Used sensibly amphetamine, specifically d-amphetamine (tradename Dexedrine) is a very useful drug. Problems were also much lower when you could easily get it from your local doctor. Once it became hard to get legally trade went underground, the authorities spent time and money trying to crush it, dl-methamphetamine took over, offering a higher profit margin, and eventually the authorities through their continuing efforts managed to get that replaced with d-methamphetamine. So today the only amphetamine you'll typically find on the street is the strongest of them all, d-methampetamine. It is also the hardest to use sensibly. That's prohibition for you. Happens every time.

The war on drugs has been very expensive, and ultimately completely pointless. In 30 years the authorities have made absolutely no progress in stopping drug use. It doesn't surprise me. Taking drugs is just part of human nature.

kragoh
19-04-06, 19:08
Another thing to point out is that many teens that smoke the stuff feel that it's ok to take different drugs that's offered to them, since, to them, they haven't had any kind of problems. So they feel invincible and that nothing wrong will happen.

None of the above is an argument against legalising drugs.

Teenagers do feel invincible. You can blame anti-drug campaigners for demonising drugs in general and for preaching the rubbish that all drugs are the same. When a teenager uses cannabis for a while they are going to realise these nuts lied to them and since all drugs are the same they'll do anything else with abandon. Cannabis won't even produce any noticeable hangover in a young healthy person. Problem is that drugs are not super-harmful as protrayed by the anti-drug loons so it really doesn't matter which drug comes first. Instead of sensible information teenagers get bombarded with lies in an attempt to frighten them. There's a stupid idea, trying to frighten born non-conformists (well most, there are always some sheep in the bunch).


how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)

According to you actually. It is intrinsic in the gateway drug fantasy.


Marijuana users have been known to become bored with the drug, so they look for a new high.

Maybe, maybe not. Entirely irrelevant to a debate on legalisation.


gA 2002 SAMHSA report, Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications, concludes that the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults. The report found that 62 percent of adults age 26 or older who initiated marijuana before they were 15 years old reported that they had used cocaine in their lifetime. More than 9 percent reported they had used heroin and 53.9 percent reported non-medical use of psychotherapeutics. This compares to a 0.6 percent rate of lifetime use of cocaine, a 0.1 percent rate of lifetime use of heroin and a 5.1 percent rate of lifetime non-medical use of psychotherapeutics for those who never used marijuana. Increases in the likelihood of cocaine and heroin use and drug dependence are also apparent for those who initiate use of marijuana at any later age.g

A correlation. Interesting, but essentially meaningless. It tells us nothing about cannabis. The above could tell us that users of various drugs are likely to also try cannabis, although I am going to assume they actually asked which illegal drug was used first and it was cannabis.

People who explore a wide range of drugs have something in common and it has nothing to do with whether or not cannabis exists. There are also people who just want to be as intoxicated as possible as often as possible to drown out the world. This again has nothing to do with whether cannabis exists.


"Hey, if you thought that stuff was good, then you'll Love this stuff". I mean, they get the drugs from someone. That means they have a higher potential to get their hands on other drugs.

Funny thing is that the pusher is largely a myth. They don't create supply, they merely fill a demand. They attempt to acquire the drugs their customers request. Most users aren't out to just get high on whatever comes to hand, but want to a specific experience, and since every drug is different it is hard to offer anything that is a viable substitute. You can even substitute cocaine with amphetamine or vice-versa; and hallucinogens are all completely different.

Your statements are however all arguments for legalisation. No more shady dealers.


You're right, there is a fair chance of that happening. But why would you want it doubled to a "Great chance" just to add in some marijuana.

So there are two groups, alcohol users, who are currently potentially likely to drive drunk, and cannabis users, who because cannabis is legal currently only drive sober?


Ecstasy? Cocaine?

I wouldn't worry much about anyone driving on cocaine. They're likely to be less of a road hazard than a sober person. People aren't likely to drive on ecstasy - if they chose to it would require a major effort and the effects are likely to make them drive slowly and very cautiously (even more so than cannabis intoxication, which also causes the intoxicated person to become a much more cautious driver, despite not causing major impairment of co-ordination).

Unlike alcohol drugs like MDMA, THC, LSD etc. make people think they can't drive. There is nothing more ridiculous than drunk people who can barely sit up insisting they can drive, and when they do they speed off.

Again though none of this is an argument against legalisation. Everyone who wants to use drugs is already going to do so. The scaremongering and laws don't scare off those who are interested in these experiences.


the tobacco companies, once given the go ahead to commence the growing operations, wouldn't conduct business any differently with marijuana than they have with tobacco

So? For decades they faked information and pretended their product was safe. However, no-one can with a straight face claim this tricked them into thinking smoking was safe. For decades we have known the risks and those risks have been highly publicised. I still think smoking is cool because it just looks cool to hold a cigarette and blow smoke, but I've also always been well aware that smoking is unhealthy.


Liberal Media

Oh no, not the dreaded Liberal Media (tm).

kragoh
19-04-06, 19:10
One thing we can agree on, drug use is here to stay. Decades of anti-drug propaganda and mass spending on law enforcement has had no noticeable effect on use or availability. Global communication has made it harder and harder for governments to keep up this propaganda. The war looks increasingly stupid. It's supporters look ever more foolish. The more we see the more we realise this state of affairs is just like living under a vicious dictator who will torture and murder you for having the wrong attitudes and beliefs.

Mitsuo
19-04-06, 19:12
HelioBacter said- "noo, nooo nicotine's just a harmless neurotoxin.
do you have a clue how many people die every year of tobacco consumption?
how many legs my father as a MD has to cut off every year?"

I'm not denying that people die from tobacco consumption. People can die of too much Vitamin D, it doesn't make it a drug. Do I have a clue? Sure why not. Although YOU may call it a drug, Tobacco is not considered a drug.

Helio said- "and do you know how many people were killed by cannabis so far? NO ONE.
to reach the lethal dosage of THC, you would have to smoke tons of grass, what's physically impossible"

Hmmm, don't recall me saying anything about it killing you. Your list doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that I should watch out for stupid drivers on the road. But we all know that.

Helio- " btw, seeds can be bought practically everywhere, legally (don't know how things in the US are, but i guess you've got growshops too."

Nope. Don't assume.

Helio- "erm... yes. marijuana is a hallucinogen. maybe i just don't have as good stuff as you, but i haven't had a single hallucination, and i smoke regularily on weekends for about 3 years now"

Yes there have been claims that marijuana does that.

Helio- "ok, now you mix it up with LSD, i'm fine with that. it's the same thing anyway.
sorry but i think you don't know anything about this drug. you obviously neither have experience with it, nor have you tried to do some serious research, besides flicks like "reefer madness" from the 1930s"

Yes, LSD does that too. More often of course. No, I may not know as much about this drug than you, or other pot heads, but I have friends that have had hallucinations after smoking the stuff, and other side affects. But, I obviously have no reason to do it.

Helio said-"just my 2 cents, no offense meant"

Although, Im sure it was meant. Non taken. If you have better info than me, then be my guest and correct me.

Mitsuo
19-04-06, 19:20
Kragoh- "NIDA? You may as well quote the Tooth Fairy. She does much more reliable research on the subject."
So it's not the tooth fairy? Ah man...
Dude, calm down just a little. Although I like to play devils advocate with things that the majority vote on, on this I still am against marijuana. But I already know that you guys make a great point. In some ways I am with you, and some I am not. I know my argument had flaws and fallacies. In fact, I was being redundant most of the time.

Anyway, America won't be legalizing any time soon. So I don't have to worry about it.

Mitsuo
19-04-06, 19:33
Kragoh-"Oh no, not the dreaded Liberal Media"

I am guessing you have no problem with the media.

Kragoh said-"Originally Posted by Mitsuo Oda
how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)"

No I didn't say that......
then Kragoh said-"According to you actually. It is intrinsic in the gateway drug fantasy.""

Don't misquote me bud. If you would read it all the way through. You would realize that that was me quoting Bossel. Nice try though.

Anyway, your obviously a little tweeked in the head to think that it's ok to take some cocaine instead of alcohol. But to ones own right?

Have fun with your drugs Bahrain!

heliobacter
19-04-06, 19:59
-> wikipedia: droge (drug, german)

"according to the WHO, a drug is any substance that is able to manipulate a living organism's functions."

furthermore, it says

"most common drugs worldwide are alcohol and nicotine, both are able to cause mental and physical addictions. a majority of drug users die because of these substances."

claiming that "tobacco" or nicotine isn't considered as a drug is just false.

and even if it's not called so, you seem to ignore the fact that it KILLS thousands and thousands of people every day. so what makes THC more dangerous in your opinion?

so please compare how many people die of too much vitamin D, and how many of tobacco consumption

next, for that hallucinogen thing:

-> wikipedia: cannabis (english this time)

it says "Auditory or visual hallucinations at high doses in some users"

ok, this point goes to you, although i know quite a few people who have tried it, and i've never heard about that. u know, some people say after drinking a certain type of water from a holy spring, they've seen the virgin mary, don't think that water should be called a hallucinogen.

and notice that i haven't insulted you in any way. this is a discussion, no need to call me names.

Mitsuo
19-04-06, 20:10
Heliobacter- "ok, this point goes to you, although i know quite a few people who have tried it, and i've never heard about that. u know, some people say after drinking a certain type of water from a holy spring, they've seen the virgin mary, don't think that water should be called a hallucinogen."

Agree, I don't think the holy spring should be considered a hallucinogen either. Probably the power of suggestion.

Helio-"and notice that i haven't insulted you in any way. this is a discussion, no need to call me names."

Nope. I don't recall calling you a name in the first place. If you're referring to "pot head", It was a general statement not intended for insult. If I did insult you then I apologize.

helio-"and even if it's not called so, you seem to ignore the fact that it KILLS thousands and thousands of people every day. so what makes THC more dangerous in your opinion?"

No, I am not ignoring the fact that tobacco kills. Why bring it up? When I never said that Cannibis kills. It would just be a moot point.

Comparing the deaths of Vitamin D, and Tobacco is not necessary.

Anyway, I have already stopped my involvement on this issue in the past, because I am bored of it, and it's a waste of my time, so I will not be back in the debate. Unless I happen to read Kragoh misquote me again.

Nice talking to you, and see you in other threads? Later!

heliobacter
19-04-06, 20:50
yep, this topic causes a stir everywhere it is discussed.

of course, maybe we'll be in the same team next time / next thread :wave:

Matiasu
21-05-10, 22:26
I've known people who would smoke pot every day, and judging by those people I'd say there certainly are side-effects to cannabis. They all became paranoid over time and they all ended up believing in different kinds of crazy conspiracies.
I still feel it should be allowed for medical cases though.

edao
12-03-11, 13:25
I often think when having this debate with people they kind of set an awfully low standard of living on themselves and their society.

You have to ask yourself who wants to live in a world where people at every opportunity are wanting to intoxicate themselves? Who wants a parent to be drunk or their children to be stoned.

If you want to live a good life and set high standards for yourself and your children don't be weak! Drugs are for loosers and wasters, alcohol is a luxury product and should be consumed as such.

In the UK city centres on a Friday and Saturday night are a disgrace because people abuse alcohol to the point it has become accepted as part of our culture.

Reinaert
12-03-11, 16:01
Well.. edao... It depends on how you see society.

If you are liberal, than every human being should be able to decide for himself.
But the liberals are not keen on drugs...

The socialists don't want it either. The idea is that cannabis and other drugs make people only more stupid than they are already.

Who like drugs? Yes, the conservatives.

The masses are doped with religion, drugs, and sex and TV.

(Listen to John Lennon.. Working Class Hero)

Rastko Pocesta
28-04-11, 16:30
Both cannabis and LSD, along with many other substances which possession is now punishable, shall be legalized. Check out Sir Ian Thomas Gilmore.

Franco
11-01-12, 02:20
If tobacco and alcohol are legal then cannabis should be legal too. All drugs should be legal in fact.

clark85
12-01-12, 13:24
Interesting thought. Making it legal in all European countries would be an idea. You could generate profits from official businesses and taxes, actually help those people very addicted (as with alcohol) better and controll those who just rarely use it.

But the political chances for this to happen are probably very very low.

himagain
29-01-12, 05:14
YES, cannabis is only harmful to the addictive personality. But then, so are alcohol and tobacco.

Taharqa
04-02-12, 02:19
Banning weed is as stupid as banning alcohol. It's all about the taxes and nothing more.

Riccardo
02-04-12, 17:16
Yes, just don't do it while working or before driving! =D

Brett142
25-05-12, 21:56
If you look at alcohol, especially in the UK where binge drinking is a problem, look at how people act, how they speak to others, and how they compose themselves in public. They abuse people verbally, physically and mentally, they seem to lose all respect for their surroundings and themselves. Most rapes happen when the women (and men) are drunk. I am perfectly comfortable with saying that alcohol is by FAR (with the exception of maybe heroin and cocaine) the WORST thing people take to intoxicate themselves. People who smoke weed are chilled, relaxed and would never dream of acting the way people do on alcohol. Same goes for ecstasy, amphetamines etc.

If I had my way, alcohol would be banned and other drugs would be legal, especially cannabis.

Keegah
26-05-12, 01:49
Not sure that alcohol should be banned, since despite the fact that it's obviously worse than marijuana, most people are nonetheless perfectly capable of using it responsibly. On all other accounts I agree 100%. Frankly, I think all drugs should be legalized. The weaklings that look to drugs to deal with life do it regardless of whether or not the substance in question - whether that be alcohol, heroin, cocaine, whatever - is legally permitted. But if they were all legal, it would harm the various criminal organizations that depend on drug dealing, it would allow the substances to be taxed, monitored and regulated, and it would empty our ridiculously overcrowded (only really referring to the U.S. here) prisons of a lot of folks that did no crime other than trying to get themselves high. Marijuana, being the most harmless one, should be the first legalized substance. But in time, I think all of them should be allowed.

L.D.Brousse
29-05-12, 23:19
I to think we should make them legal. It would cut down on violence around the globe. I do not do drugs other than a beer from time to time. But I don't agree with drug testing on job sites unless they can tell you did it on the clock. I believe what a man does in his own home is up to him. By making drugs legal jails would be less populated and a far less burden on tax payers

qrince
12-09-13, 23:12
No, i have smoked alot of weed, so much that i know enough about it.
People say you cannot be addicted to weed, well.. That is just not right, mabye you can't physical, but i tell you, you can 100% be mental.
I smoked 10-15g weed every day(I know it's not healty) I was addicted to it, my live was stopping, the only think i was thinking on was >smoke some weed<..
But 1 thing will continue to another, and sure it was, i was taking alot of other things.

Like Playaa say "Your body, your choice" -But some people can't see how much it's really destorying your life in the end, if you can't hold it on a minimum..

LeBrok
13-09-13, 02:07
I would say legalize it, if not the awful smell that carries very far.

Nobody1
13-09-13, 03:09
Legalize it and tax it;

adamo
14-09-13, 19:03
Smoke some and then decide for yourself what they should do with that; careful not to get too intoxicated.

adamo
14-09-13, 19:04
There are many people for and against marijuana use.

Cambrius (The Red)
15-09-13, 03:57
Legalize it, but limit it's use.

American Idiot
21-11-13, 14:40
I cant think of ANY reason why it should be Illegal , ANYwhere.

in fact, I am smoking a blunt right now!

American Idiot
21-11-13, 14:42
I would say legalize it, if not the awful smell that carries very far.
when it smells like skunk, that's how you know it's good

American Idiot
21-11-13, 14:45
No, i have smoked alot of weed, so much that i know enough about it.
People say you cannot be addicted to weed, well.. That is just not right, mabye you can't physical, but i tell you, you can 100% be mental.
I smoked 10-15g weed every day(I know it's not healty) I was addicted to it, my live was stopping, the only think i was thinking on was >smoke some weed<..
But 1 thing will continue to another, and sure it was, i was taking alot of other things.

Like Playaa say "Your body, your choice" -But some people can't see how much it's really destorying your life in the end, if you can't hold it on a minimum..

a person can be mentally addicted to ANYTHING, food, drugs, sex, another person, etc..... has nothing to do with the actual substance. That is more of a mental thing with the user.

American Idiot
21-11-13, 14:48
By making drugs legal jails would be less populated and a far less burden on tax payers

those are also some of the very reasons marijuana remains illegal on the federal level in the U.S.

Aberdeen
21-11-13, 17:11
Canada outlawed marijuana in 1923, as a result of participation in international conferences about the scourge of recreational drug use, even though very few people in Canada used marijuana for anything other than medical purposes at that time. It didn't become a popular recreational drug here until the 1960s. A federal commission looked at the situation and recommended legalization in the 1970s, but that didn't happen because of pressure from the American government. And now we have a government of right wing dicks here in Canada who want to increase penalties for marijuana use, growth and distribution. They're putting a lot of people in jail for no reason, and hurting our balance of payments with the U.S. by preventing the growth and export of marijuana to the large market to the south of us.

I gather that the American history of marijuana use goes back a lot further, and some attempts to outlaw it were made in the 19th century, but its eventual prohibition on a federal level in the U.S. mostly had to do with finding work for government agents who had lost their jobs because of the repeal of alcohol prohibition there.

Does anyone know the history of marijuana use in Europe? I read something about smoking pipes that Shakespeare used being examined for drug residue and they apparently found traces of marijuana and cocaine, but I don't know if those results were ever confirmed.

American Idiot
22-11-13, 09:10
Does anyone know the history of marijuana use in Europe? I read something about smoking pipes that Shakespeare used being examined for drug residue and they apparently found traces of marijuana and cocaine, but I don't know if those results were ever confirmed.

on the history channel they had a show one time that did exhibit those pipes known to have belonged to Shakespeare and they did say that yes, they had marijuana residue on them.

plus, when you look at something like "A Mid-Summer's Night Dream" it makes you wonder.........

Aberdeen
22-11-13, 16:38
on the history channel they had a show one time that did exhibit those pipes known to have belonged to Shakespeare and they did say that yes, they had marijuana residue on them.

plus, when you look at something like "A Mid-Summer's Night Dream" it makes you wonder.........

LOL. When I look at something like "A Midsummer's Night's Dream", it makes me wonder whether the Bard was smoking opium, or was maybe a time travelling acidhead.

American Idiot
23-11-13, 13:07
LOL. When I look at something like "A Midsummer's Night's Dream", it makes me wonder whether the Bard was smoking opium, or was maybe a time travelling acidhead.

one my other favorites is Alice n Wonderland.......she eats a shroom, then trips out, and along the way meets a talking caterpillar smoking a hookah.

you dont have to be a Jefferson Airplane fan to figure that one out, either.

LeBrok
27-11-13, 03:31
when it smells like skunk, that's how you know it's good
I didn't know that. But why smoke it, just eat brownies. It is much less invasive to your neighbors.

American Idiot
27-11-13, 13:22
I didn't know that. But why smoke it, just eat brownies. It is much less invasive to your neighbors.

I guess more people would eat brownies or lollipops if they had more access to them, maybe.

I actually have heard that eating marijuana brownies gets a person higher than just smoking it.
Ingesting it has a stronger affect.

Aberdeen
27-11-13, 19:42
one my other favorites is Alice n Wonderland.......she eats a shroom, then trips out, and along the way meets a talking caterpillar smoking a hookah.

you dont have to be a Jefferson Airplane fan to figure that one out, either.

Actually, I was a Jefferson Airplane fan at one time. Then I got old and boring, and that kind of music now hurts my ears. I've come to prefer classical music. And it's been a very long time since I had any personal interest in marijuana. However, if other people want to smoke, the only problem is that they may annoy others around them, so I agree that other ways of consuming marijuana are better if you're around other people who don't smoke. That's just good manners.

Aphroditeee
03-04-14, 21:04
Not in every country, only where there is a distinct lack of Cannabis.

sherlockholmes
15-10-14, 13:58
I support drugs legalization.

FutureEarth
26-02-15, 17:39
Might as well make alcohol illegal then. Since it impairs you way more while driving at least.

individual1st
22-03-15, 01:44
Yes, there is absolutely no reason to make it illegal.

pacificbreeze
24-04-16, 11:00
Some countries make good money with legalization, so why not?
If alcohol is legal, what's wrong with cannabis?

Gash
29-12-18, 04:20
Yes. Absolutely.

morris
16-04-19, 23:39
I'm for legalization of drugs too.

Faunus
27-07-19, 15:30
Yes, of course.

Yetos
30-07-19, 12:00
No Way

legalization of Cannabis is a clear decadense of society,

so
the conditions of legalize cannabis
1) same taxation as alcool and smoking
2) same penalties as alcool and smoking,

PLUS
if a country has law and allow Pharmaceutical cannabis, then NO NEED FOR LEGALIZATION.


SO PRIMARY MAKE CLEAR IN OUR MINDS IF CANNABIS IS A PHARMACEUTICAL RPODUCT? OR NOT?

and if is not pharmaceutical product,
then legalization must follow the same rules and taxation as tobacco and alcool,
it is time to stop gangs and mafias to earn, and time for state to earn, if it is not a pharmaceutical product,

But if it is a pharmaceutical product, Then no need to legalize it, your doctor may 'recipee' it


The activism of cannabis junkies must be over,
either pay taxes and obey rules like tobacco smokers,
either accept it is a medicine and your doctor must provide it.

if Legalization of cannabis means
1 provided by industry with certified and stable quality and produced in cerified farms, under state license and supervision, as in tobacco and and alcool.
2 pay taxes when buy from legal shop and market, and forbit to buy from mafia gangs or 'farmers'
3 no usage in public buildings and at a distance
4 no usage in house and in every closed building
5 no usage in cars
6 no usage in front of kids under 16
then I accept


But if cannabis is a medicine, a pharmacy
Then I disagree, your doctor and pharmaceion apotheke must provided, via diagnosis and medical recipee


Choose

Faralysi
30-07-19, 15:51
I don't think it should be legal. But I do think that it should be legal in medical matters.

bigsnake49
30-07-19, 20:22
It should be legal. We have spent way too much time and money trying to police it, money better spent, at least in the US, on more serious drugs. On the other hand it should regulated, as in your employer should be able to test you and fire you and the police should be able to test you. Regulate it as in each container should be labeled with the THC strength and weight, the product should be tested for chemical contaminants, etc. Tax it of course!

Ziober
31-07-19, 08:35
In Spain is legal for comsumption in private. You cannot carry it on public spaces, don't bring it to anybody that doesn't had smoked it. But only auto-growing in small number (about 6 plants per person) on a hidden private grow (never in a forest or public place, but in your properties).

The problem cames if you are a driver. Because in the drugs test for drivers you will be show as positive even if your last joint was smoked days ago, I don't know if 3 days or 2 weeks. I think that test should be changed for some more accurate for stablish your drive capability.

RoeGriffin
16-11-19, 23:25
Yes. The recreational-medical benefits are astounding. Want money for better schools and public works? Tax marijuana


Want faster growing paper producing crops? Grow marijuana


Want to feel good about yourself during all the shit that is modernism without having withdrawals or lasting psychosis? Smoke some marijuana

dominique_nuit
20-11-19, 19:12
I don't think marijuana is nearly as benign as people imagine, especially today's marijuana (as opposed to marijuana circa 1990)

Further, now that it's been decriminalized in NYC, it's ubiquitous. You can hardly open the windows anymore without noxious weed fumes blowing in

bigsnake49
05-10-20, 18:43
Absolutely! We have wasted so much time and money on this stupid war on drugs. Time for a new approach.

Axion
07-10-20, 21:56
I don't think marijuana is nearly as benign as people imagine, especially today's marijuana (as opposed to marijuana circa 1990)

This Is So True, even more there are spiritual risks when this healing plant is smoked i.e. as such an destroying CO2 passion for the lungs, still if ingested as food or drink simply it is uniquely beneficial plant that is boosting the immunity as no other repairing and stimulating the lymph nodes that are responsible for production of antibodies and t-cells ...

particularly nowadays Cannabis is more present as indica variety which is stuffed with enormous amounts of THC, while the 90's Weed was usually Sativa that is balanced mix of THC + CBD's, and actually CBD's are those lymph boost stimulants ...

only regulated market can null the black market than now is in hands usually of state mafia that as such is healthy hazard risk for any society ... so Yes there should be legalization but it must be centralized as controlled by the states process so the price and quality would be insured, but also it should be pushed aside from the cities as production, most cleverly if its done as rural legalization but for individual farmers than corporate pockets, but first of all as RuralLe. it would be lesser temptation for the Youth, tho if this becomes rule of a thumb for sure such the legalization (sooner or later) will bring the MJ to level of alcohol and tobacco consumption thus first of all (in any country) there should be real sport strategy as defocusing spinn for the Youth to curb the risks for pothead mediocrity ... finally Police would not have any excuses that they have done their job chasing MJ'ers instead dealers of real dangerous chemical drugs, hope pharmaceuticals too, simply they will be unburdened from irrelevant

Axion
10-10-20, 19:54
on the prime question in every country NO simply in conservative societies it should be only prescribed as medicine, tho there is no margin to prescription if its used as substitute for benzo-diazepins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzodiazepine) thus again even there it could become wide spread if there is common sense what is better as healing agent natural remedy or chemical pharmaceuticals!

to be honest its not suitable for those countries that are religious simply its one stair to higher decadent lavish life for the Youth, altho alcohol by all means would make You more prone to hedonism than weed, but when compared as smiling bomb droped to the calm and sober inchurched life for sure its obstacle for higher spiritual growth ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urq70q8g9Uk

Wanderer
11-10-20, 00:36
It already is. She gave me Teeth before unfortunately