Society Should cannabis be legal in every country ?

Do you think cannabis (marijuana/hashish) should be legal ?

  • Yes, there is absolutely no reason to make it illegal

    Votes: 52 41.3%
  • If tobacco and alcohol are legal, then cannabis should be as well

    Votes: 29 23.0%
  • Maybe, but we lack scientific evidence to know whether it is nocive or not

    Votes: 5 4.0%
  • It should be legal only for medical reason (with prescription)

    Votes: 26 20.6%
  • I am completely against it, but not against tobacco and alcohol

    Votes: 2 1.6%
  • I would ban it altogether with cigarettes and alcohol

    Votes: 12 9.5%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    126
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
Tobacco isn't a drug.
Nicotine is a drug. The above is like saying cannabis isn't a drug.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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?
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
"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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
Besides it can make you stupid.
It can't.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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?
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
Marijuana is a gateway drug.
A myth. Long debunked. Most people start with alcohol, therefore it should be labelled the gateway drug.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
Either way, it's not good.
It is fine, since in general recreational drugs are not exceptionally harmful.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
 
Mitsuo Oda said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Mitsuo Oda said:
... 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.

Mitsuo Oda said:
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.

Mitsuo Oda said:
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. :eek:kashii: 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:

Mitsuo Oda said:
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.:eek:kashii:
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:
 
Maciamo said:
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.
 
Maciamo said:
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.
Maciamo said:
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.
Maciamo said:
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.
Maciamo said:
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.
Maciamo said:
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.
 
Satori said:
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.
 
thomas said:
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.
 
Fantt said:
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).
 
sabro said:
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.

sabro said:
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.
 
ralian said:
Isn?ft 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.
ralian said:
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.
 
Frank D. White said:
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.
Frank D. White said:
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.
Frank D. White said:
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.
 
misa.j said:
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.

misa.j said:
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.
 
cathy said:
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.
cathy said:
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.
 
Duo said:
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.
 
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 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.
 
Twisted said:
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.
Twisted said:
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.
Twisted said:
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.
 
thomas said:
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.
 
DragonChan said:
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.
 
Maciamo said:
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 219387 times.

Back
Top