PDA

View Full Version : Marijuana: Should it be legalized?


JediKnight707
07-01-2007, 08:22 PM
Aw, the ultimate question. Should it?

My $.02:

No, it shouldn't. I don't care if someone smokes pot or whatever, but I don't think it should be legalized. ~snipped~ The problem with legalizing it is abuse. You can tax it all you want, but it will be abused terribly.

Discuss!

Fredi
07-01-2007, 10:29 PM
Aw, the ultimate question. Should it?

My $.02:

No, it shouldn't. I don't care if someone smokes pot or whatever, but I don't think it should be legalized. ~snipped~ The problem with legalizing it is abuse. You can tax it all you want, but it will be abused terribly.

Discuss!

Isnít it Marihuana? Well I think it should be legalize.... Just to keep order and prevent fewer deaths. Marihuana is a natural drug and itís use by natives is Bolivia, Colombia and Peru for the altitude and medical uses, So as I said I do believe it should be legalize.

JediKnight707
07-01-2007, 10:47 PM
Get off the dope man! If you don't know how to spell marijuana.
Trust me, I know how to spell marijuana.

True_Avery
07-01-2007, 10:48 PM
Does it matter? The same amount of people are going to smoke weed regardless if it is legal or not. Irrelevant issue in my opinion.

I am curious, and amused, about this debate because it relates directly to another drug thats legal in so many places. Cigarettes. Why is weed illegal when Cigs are legal in most parts of the world? They do just as much harm, kill just as many people, and the fact cigs are legal and everywhere possibly makes them responsible for more deaths. Yes yes, I know weed does F you up a bit more than a cig does, but at the core it is the same thing.

Do I care if you smoke weed? Not really. All I care about is your second-hand smoke. Smoke it outside or away from people who do not want it in their lungs and brain. Although high people tend to hit people with their cars and hurt people and do other such things, but it is all basically the same. I don't care if you smoke, as long as you do it in a way that will not hurt others. Same with alcohol. But in the end that argument is pointless because once you are drunk or high, you have no guarantee you won't hurt anybody.

Make it legal for all I care, or ban it like they have tried. Pointless either way, because people are still going to use it to get high, some are still going to hurt people, and there is nothing law or anything can do about that fact. It does not matter how dangerous weed is, how much legalizing it will hurt people, and how much it hurts the families of people who use it. You can present every bit of proof imaginable for this debate that weed is bad, but it wont matter because people will still smoke. You get rid of all weed on earth, people will just find new ways to get high.

In summary, life sucks.

Thats my thoughts on the topic.

Jae Onasi
07-01-2007, 10:55 PM
Moderator note: This is a public forum. That means _anyone_, including law enforcement, can read this, so you would be wise not to discuss illegal activities. Also, remember that posting about illegal activities is against Forum Rules. Smoking pot is illegal in the US except in CA and NM and there you have to have a doctor's prescription for it. Don't talk about smoking pot or taking illegal drugs, please. --Jae

Believe it or not (and ET in particular may fall over in shock on this one. :D ), I don't object if it's legalized. It can be addictive, but not as addictive as other drugs like heroin or ice, and I think it's less harmful to the liver than alcohol. Other drugs should stay illegal because they are so dangerous to the user (or to the people around the user when the user freaks out). We'd have to implement standards for cannabis DUI when someone decides to be stupid and drives under the influence, but that's doable as well.

JediKnight707
07-01-2007, 10:57 PM
Does it matter? The same amount of people are going to smoke weed regardless if it is legal or not. Irrelevant issue in my opinion.

But its still worth debating.

I am curious, and amused, about this debate because it relates directly to another drug thats legal in so many places. Cigarettes. Why is weed illegal when Cigs are legal in most parts of the world? They do just as much harm, kill just as many people, and the fact cigs are legal and everywhere possibly makes them responsible for more deaths. Yes yes, I know weed does F you up a bit more than a cig does, but at the core it is the same thing.

The key phrase is: "Yes yes, I know weed does F you up..." That's they key. Cig. do affect your mind in a way, sometimes they make you lightheaded, but generally speaking you keep a clear head.

Do I care if you smoke weed? Not really. All I care about is your second-hand smoke. Smoke it outside or away from people who do not want it in their lungs and brain. Although high people tend to hit people with their cars and hurt people and do other such things, but it is all basically the same. I don't care if you smoke, as long as you do it in a way that will not hurt others. Same with alcohol. But in the end that argument is pointless because once you are drunk or high, you have no guarantee you won't hurt anybody.

But you are more likely to hurt someone than if you were in your sane mind. Proven.

Make it legal for all I care, or ban it like they have tried. Pointless either way, because people are still going to use it to get high, some are still going to hurt people, and there is nothing law or anything can do about that fact. It does not matter how dangerous weed is, how much legalizing it will hurt people, and how much it hurts the families of people who use it. You can present every bit of proof imaginable for this debate that weed is bad, but it wont matter because people will still smoke. You get rid of all weed on earth, people will just find new ways to get high.

True, but weed is the most common drug in the world, so you have to assume doing something drastic to its legality would affect it.

EDIT: I am totally shocked at your reaction Jae. I thought that you as a parent would object mightly to this. Now your forcing me to get serious D:

The biggest problem with marijuana is the fact that it is a gateway drug. 60% of people who smoke dope before age 15 will try cocaine, and people who smoke it under age 15 are 80times more likely to do cocaine. Those to me are the biggest harms of it all. It leads you to the bad drugs [:

Emperor Devon
07-01-2007, 11:05 PM
Marihuana is a natural drug

Dunno why whether it's natural or not matters, either way it screws up. Poking your eyes out with a pointed stick is natural but not very healthy either...

and itís use by natives is Bolivia, Colombia and Peru for the altitude and medical uses,

Marijuana is already allowed for medical uses. If you have some types of illnesses, you can be given a permit to own up to 200 marijuana plants in your house. (In WA, at least - and yes, it's silly, no one person would ever need 200 plants) Legalizing it will only allow people who don't need it to abuse it.

Well I think it should be legalize.... Just to keep order and prevent fewer deaths.

To keep order? For Pete's sake, the drug ruins people's memories, fills their lungs with tar and kills them. Doesn't strike me as particularly orderly.

(In case anyone didn't infer from this post, I am against the idea of legalizing marijuana)

Samuel Dravis
07-01-2007, 11:08 PM
I say legalize it. It's relatively harmless and it would give the police and prison system a break. It would also crash the market for it completely, which would be entertaining. I have no intention of ever using such drugs, legal or not, but I don't think it's something to be really worried about. Doubtless its use would require a certain (small) amount of personal responsibility, but that's hardly a reason to have a ban on something.

I wonder if the police themselves would be happy or sad about its legalization...

True, but weed is the most common drug in the world, so you have to assume doing something drastic to its legality would affect it.It would still be #1? :p

mimartin
07-01-2007, 11:15 PM
We'd have to implement standards for cannabis DUI when someone decides to be stupid and drives under the influence, but that's doable as well.

I see this all the time in the industry I work. That is why they changed the name of the offense from DWI to DUI. One of my clients was even charged and convicted for taking over the counter cold medicine and driving. Read the warning labels!

As for the topic of legalizing marijuana canít say if Iím for or against it, Iíve seen how it has effect people within my family and led to stronger drugs. I donít know if it was just the additive properties of the drug or their weak personalities. I donít really care if people can handle it the I guess so. I however will not be using it or any other drug (except alcohol and caffeine ). I donít even take aspirin till my head is about to pound off.

In summary, life sucks.
Turn that frown upside down. :) I know that is stupid but trust me life gets better.

I wonder if the police themselves would be happy or sad about its legalization...

Donít know about the police, but the tax payer should be happier. Maybe our prison would be a little less crowded without all the recreational users filling the prison beds. Maybe that would free up the police to actually go after the violet members of our society.

JediKnight707
07-01-2007, 11:18 PM
Yeah ditto about the family thing. Haven't had a fun ride with pot with the famiglia.
>__>
<__<

GarfieldJL
07-01-2007, 11:35 PM
Marijuana growing was once legal in the United States, however it wasn't for drug use, it was for using the plant as rope, apparently it made very good rope. Also it's cocaine use that is in Columbia, not Marijuana.

Fredi
07-01-2007, 11:50 PM
Marijuana growing was once legal in the United States, however it wasn't for drug use, it was for using the plant as rope, apparently it made very good rope. Also it's cocaine use that is in Columbia, not Marijuana.

Yes my bad It's coca , I forgot

Totenkopf
07-02-2007, 12:00 AM
(In WA, at least - and yes, it's silly, no one person would ever need 200 plants)

Unless of course they're doing a little "discreet" dealing on the side. ;)

Basically, I think there are good reasons to ban pot, but also think that most casual users should be forced to do community service in order to keep the jails clear for hardened felons. The federal mandatory minimums would make a helluva lot more sense if they were applying them to the dealers and producers of the drug. The other way casts to wide a net at too great an expense. Btw, does anyone have any figures on how many of the 2.2 million prisoners in the US are "merely" casual dopeheads?

TK-8252
07-02-2007, 12:08 AM
First, I'd like to point out that pot was originally banned in the U.S. because of racist white people. These racists demanded that weed be banned because they claimed Mexicans were smoking pot and going on rampages through town. Of course this was a lie spouted by racist bigots who had a big influence in the government. Currently, the "reason" why weed is illegal in the U.S. is because it has no medicinal value. Which, of course, is silly.

Weed is not addictive. It has no addicitive qualities to it. They're not cigarettes.

Weed is not a gateway drug. There are lots of people who smoke pot and never touch any other drugs. If someone does go on to use hard drugs, the reason why is because they want to, not because weed makes them.

GarfieldJL
07-02-2007, 12:30 AM
First, I'd like to point out that pot was originally banned in the U.S. because of racist white people. These racists demanded that weed be banned because they claimed Mexicans were smoking pot and going on rampages through town. Of course this was a lie spouted by racist bigots who had a big influence in the government. Currently, the "reason" why weed is illegal in the U.S. is because it has no medicinal value. Which, of course, is silly.


That's actually not true, Marijuana was originally used during World War 2 to make rope not for smoking or drug use. Also stop playing the race card, it is complete and utter garbage, quit claiming people like me are racist. I'm part Native American, and tobacco actually had cultural significance, ever hear of the Peace Pipe, that wasn't Marijuana they were smoking!


Weed is not addictive. It has no addicitive qualities to it. They're not cigarettes.


Sorry but police reports and former users of marijuana would say otherwise.



Weed is not a gateway drug. There are lots of people who smoke pot and never touch any other drugs. If someone does go on to use hard drugs, the reason why is because they want to, not because weed makes them.

Isn't that cause they often get caught, also there are lots of people who do smoke pot and go on to more hardcore drugs.

TK-8252
07-02-2007, 01:00 AM
That's actually not true, Marijuana was originally used during World War 2 to make rope not for smoking or drug use. Also stop playing the race card, it is complete and utter garbage, quit claiming people like me are racist. I'm part Native American, and tobacco actually had cultural significance, ever hear of the Peace Pipe, that wasn't Marijuana they were smoking!

Of course I'm not saying YOU are racist. However, the original people who demanded pot be criminalized WERE. You just need to watch the History Channel or read a book on the history of drugs, or even read a Wikipedia article to realize that these white racists were key to the criminalization of pot. It would probably never be illegal if it weren't for the efforts of racists.

The legal history of marijuana in the United States mainly involves the 20th and 21st centuries. In the 1800s, marijuana (also referred to as cannabis) was legal in most states, as hemp to make items such as rope, sails, and clothes, and was used for medicinal purposes; however, after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a flood of Mexicans immigrated to the United States and introduced recreational marijuana use. A public misconception that Mexicans and other minorities committed violent crimes while under the influence of marijuana, which caused many states to criminalize marijuana, was promoted by Harry J. Anslinger's media interviews, faulty studies, and propaganda films that claimed marijuana caused violent, erratic, and overly sexual behavior.

[...]

In 1910, recreational marijuana use was introduced to American culture when large numbers of Mexicans immigrated to the United States due to the Mexican Revolution. Anti-drug campaigners claimed that terrible crimes were a result of Mexicans who used marijuana. In the 1930, during the Great Depression, research linked the use of marijuana with violence and crime primarily committed by minorities; growing unemployment increased resentment and fear of Mexicans and 29 states had outlawed marijuana by 1931.

Harry J. Anslinger, the nation's first drug czar, publicly spoke about marijuana's effects; for example, Anslinger claimed, "[African American]s' satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States

Sorry but police reports and former users of marijuana would say otherwise.

The police have an interest in seeing weed remain illegal. Probably about half of the police force would be out of a job if pot was legalized. And I'm sure that there are people who are addicted to pot. But there are people who have addictive personalities, and they can become addicted to just about anything from baseball to the internet. Pot does not have addictive qualities.

Isn't that cause they often get caught, also there are lots of people who do smoke pot and go on to more hardcore drugs.

But if they do go on to hard drugs, it's not because of the weed itself. It's because of other circumstances. The whole "gateway drug" thing is government propaganda and holds no real water.

I highly recommend reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29#Relationship_with_other_drugs

Jae Onasi
07-02-2007, 01:36 AM
Garfield, I don't believe TK was directing the racist thing at you in particular. I think it was meant as a general comment. TK--please stop swearing in Kavar's, even with the filter. You're capable of so much more verbal creativity than that.

I think pot may be a gateway drug because it's an entree to an illegal activity and to the people who sell illegal substances. Granted, the smoking of it is not the safest--it has the same risks as smoking cigarettes in that respect, but there are other ways to get the THC besides smoking it.

SilentScope001
07-02-2007, 01:48 AM
The Drug War is a quamire, yes, but it is a quamire I support.

It is a quamire because people will want to use drugs anyway. Like people want to murder other people, or steal money, or cheat on their taxes. We can't withdraw from those fights, but what if we do, based on the fact that you can't stop them, you might as well regulate their use?

And I object to legalization because, well, actually, I won't. I dislike it because there are side-effects, and the government, by stopping me from taking those drugs, prevent me from getting the side-effects, and prevent me from harming them. But if they legalize it, I won't start protest marches. I just won't use those drugs at all, because I don't want to be drugged.

We got tobbaco problems and drinking DUIs...do you think we really want more of these sort of problems? Well, maybe we do. But I won't.

Fredi
07-02-2007, 02:03 AM
TK-8252.... hmmm I think this might sound heavy but dont take it bad.... you are not white right?

TK-8252
07-02-2007, 02:26 AM
TK--please stop swearing in Kavar's, even with the filter. You're capable of so much more verbal creativity than that.

Not really. ;)

But okay....

I think pot may be a gateway drug because it's an entree to an illegal activity and to the people who sell illegal substances.

You're right about that. The reason why some argue pot is a gateway drug is because it's an introduction to the underground, and to some degree it's true. Which is why you legalize it to solve this problem, and many other problems associated with the criminalization.

TK-8252.... hmmm I think this might sound heavy but dont take it bad.... you are not white right?

I am white. However, I don't have to be colored to realize that other whites have done severe damage to our society through their racism in the past (and to a lesser degree, in the present).

Samnmax221
07-02-2007, 02:59 AM
I dislike it because there are side-effects, and the government, by stopping me from taking those drugs, prevent me from getting the side-effects, and prevent me from harming them. But if they legalize it, I won't start protest marches. I just won't use those drugs at all, because I don't want to be drugged.
Well there is the option of growing a ****ing spine and deciding whats right for yourself instead of requiring some entity to pop out of the wall and tell you whats right and what isn't.

Corinthian
07-02-2007, 03:02 AM
I don't see any value in legalizing it. If you tax the crap out of it, people are just going to smuggle it in. Interesting thing, I've heard you can make in excess of $2 Million smuggling perfectly legal cigarettes over the border and dodging tariffs. Legalizing it won't make the illegal traffic much less. In fact, it could concievably increase illegal traffic.

PoiuyWired
07-02-2007, 03:23 AM
To keep order? For Pete's sake, the drug ruins people's memories, fills their lungs with tar and kills them. Doesn't strike me as particularly orderly.


Well, other than the time where someone is high, the effect on memory is qutie minimal, unless its severe abuse over a long period of time. So it is really not much different from alcohol abuse.

And as for "fills their lungs with tar and kills them" that can hardly happen, more like physically not possable. BTW as for the tar factor, there is less of it in a blunt than in a cigarette.

TK-8252
07-02-2007, 03:33 AM
I don't see any value in legalizing it. If you tax the crap out of it, people are just going to smuggle it in. Interesting thing, I've heard you can make in excess of $2 Million smuggling perfectly legal cigarettes over the border and dodging tariffs. Legalizing it won't make the illegal traffic much less. In fact, it could concievably increase illegal traffic.

Then go for the free market way and don't tax it any more than other products. I know of no people who obtain cigarettes from smugglers... that's just stupid... to turn an otherwise legal activity into one risking one's life and liberty. I really don't think that would happen on a large scale.

Corinthian
07-02-2007, 04:00 AM
You'd be surprised. As for risking your life and liberty for money, welcome to the world. You think people rob banks for the humanitarian value of it?

Darth Smaug
07-02-2007, 05:30 AM
Legalize it!
Come on people, there's nothing wrong with a little weed.
People who smoke it are relax, laugh alot and don't do anything wrong.
Everybody thinks it's just a big drug, well it's just a plant. I compare weed to alcohol and nicotine. If it made people aggresive and rebel then it should be forbidden, but all it does is make you feel good and happy. So what really is the problem? If they wanna smoke it, let them. It's their life after all.

adamqd
07-02-2007, 05:35 AM
I personally don't smoke weed anymore or drink for that matter, but the only thing weed ever did to me was make me lazy, booze on the other hand has been a catalyst to some of the worst decisions I've ever made, so maybe legalizing dope it isn't such a bad thing, maybe less people would use alcohol as an escape if weed was available? I'd rather walk down the street and see a bar full of laid back Friends listening to reggae, than some out of control thugs vomiting and smashing glasses.

Darth Smaug
07-02-2007, 05:45 AM
Exactly, while weed makes you chill and relax, alcohol makes you aggresive.
It's like adamqd says, rather see some relaxed people than alcohol aggresive hooligans.

Pho3nix
07-02-2007, 05:52 AM
I'm all for legalizing marijuana.

I don't see any widespread negative effects of legalizing it, it would also help 'conquer' the black market if pharmacies for example would sell marijuana.

Fredi
07-02-2007, 10:23 AM
I am white. However, I don't have to be colored to realize that other whites have done severe damage to our society through their racism in the past (and to a lesser degree, in the present).

I am with you man....(Latin)just in case :P

Ghost Down
07-02-2007, 10:29 AM
Hmm, Weed is legal over here in Holland where I live. And we got no problems with it over here.. Except for the usual (illegally) weed plantation..Hehe

- Ghost Down

GarfieldJL
07-02-2007, 10:31 AM
Of course I'm not saying YOU are racist. However, the original people who demanded pot be criminalized WERE. You just need to watch the History Channel or read a book on the history of drugs, or even read a Wikipedia article to realize that these white racists were key to the criminalization of pot. It would probably never be illegal if it weren't for the efforts of racists.


Sorry but I do watch the history channel on a regular basis, and I do read books thank you kindly. Racism has nothing to do with banning Marijuana, I seriously doubt it had to do with a bunch of violent crimes being committed by people under the influence of Marijuana based on the article you provided. That article says nothing about the Mexicans other than they introduced Recreational usage into the US. The fact it was banned after the violent crimes, was a reaction to those crimes, just like how stricter gun laws are enacted after a high profile shooting. It had absolutely nothing to do with racism.



The police have an interest in seeing weed remain illegal. Probably about half of the police force would be out of a job if pot was legalized. And I'm sure that there are people who are addicted to pot. But there are people who have addictive personalities, and they can become addicted to just about anything from baseball to the internet. Pot does not have addictive qualities.


Don't make me laugh, exercise is not considered an addiction. Playing or watching baseball isn't considered an addiction. TK-8252, I know darn well Marijuana is addictive, I've also noticed based on the situation in California that legalizing is foolish. People get it for everything from terminal illnesses to the common cold. It's highly addictive, the reason why it is illegal and not alcohol is due to the cultural significance to alcohol and the fact that red wine in moderation actually is good for the liver. You can't tell me Marijuana has any good effects unless you consider getting high to be a good effect.


But if they do go on to hard drugs, it's not because of the weed itself. It's because of other circumstances. The whole "gateway drug" thing is government propaganda and holds no real water.


Can you provide any actual proof that it is propaganda, cause I've seen brain scans of people whom were using Marijuana in the past and the scans were significantly different from the brain scan of someone that didn't use it.

Fredi
07-02-2007, 10:44 AM
Have you used MARIHUANA**? No? Then why you say is addictive if you havenít used and donít know how it is? Ö. I assure you that at least 3 of 10 guysí from the congress are marihuana users and almost 7 out of 10 in America have smoked pod. Yeah there are some people addicted to it, but there are people addicted to shopping, biting theyíre finger nails and even to work ÖÖ Marihuana is something that will never be stopped and if they keep illegalizing more problems the government will have.

GarfieldJL
07-02-2007, 10:53 AM
Considering I'm on a bunch of prescription medications some of which are controlled substances that in all likelyhood I could get killed taking illegal drugs due to an interaction, no I haven't used Marijuana, nor do I want to. I think smoking is disgusting, and I've seen people whom were on marijuana and they were like in a total state of apathy.

ET Warrior
07-02-2007, 10:55 AM
The fact it was banned after the violent crimes,The fact that it was violent crimes is suspect simply due to the nature of marijuana users. I've honestly never met someone under the effects of marijuana who had any kind of aggression or violent tendencies. Not to say it cannot happen, it just seems suspicious.

Don't make me laugh, exercise is not considered an addiction. Playing or watching baseball isn't considered an addiction. TK-8252, I know darn well Marijuana is addictive,Actually exercise can become an addiction. There are people who lift weights too much and it becomes very unhealthy for their body. People can get addicted to gambling, running, video games, etc. This doesn't mean those things themselves are to blame, it just means that the person using it doesn't have the necessary willpower to give it up.

Cigarette addiction is an actual physical addiction, once a smoker stops getting their nicotine their body responds poorly to the loss of the chemical. This is not the case with marijuana, any 'addiction' is almost a purely willpower issue.

You can't tell me Marijuana has any good effects unless you consider getting high to be a good effect.And the good effects of cigarettes and alcohol are...?

cause I've seen brain scans of people whom were using Marijuana in the past and the scans were significantly different from the brain scan of someone that didn't use it.And I've seen lung biopsies of people who smoke cigarettes and they are significantly different from lung biopsies of those who don't. What is your point?

ChAiNz.2da
07-02-2007, 10:55 AM
Can you provide any actual proof that it is propaganda, cause I've seen brain scans of people whom were using Marijuana in the past and the scans were significantly different from the brain scan of someone that didn't use it.
http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion7.htm
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html
http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/es.html

there's tons more...

In fact, if you're into the whole gateway conspiracy.. might try pointing fingers at alcohol and smoking. They're the gateway drugs to marijuana...

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is the most easily acceptable and highly used illicit drug.. that's why it's been (incorrectly) branded as the magical gate leading to total damnation :rolleyes:

Don't make me laugh, exercise is not considered an addiction.
http://www.internet-articles.com/nutrition-exercise/exercise-addiction.php
http://www.addictions.co.uk/addiction.asp?id=exercise
http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=10296

Just because YOU don't consider that it can be an addiction doesn't mean it can't happen. ;)

GarfieldJL
07-02-2007, 01:26 PM
How about from sites that aren't out to legalize drugs like Marijuana, Cocaine, etc.


Marijuana does affect the nervous system, alcohol has a cultural significance all the way back to the ancient Greeks and earlier. Furthermore, it has been proven that red wine which has alcohol in it actually is good for your liver. So alcohol in moderation can be good for you.

In my personal opinion smoking should be banned too, nicotine is an extremely addictive drug, second only to caffeine and unlike caffeine nicotine has extremely severe withdrawl effects and causes damage to the body. Caffeine in moderate amounts have little to no lasting effects on the body.

ChAiNz.2da
07-02-2007, 02:03 PM
How about from sites that aren't out to legalize drugs like Marijuana, Cocaine, etc.
Cherry picking articles to support your theory? Or are you not reading them period?

Drugwardistortions, maybe.. but sources like RAND, scienceblog, nap.edu or oh say The Institute of Medicine, are highly unlikely to be fronting the cause to bring 'evil' marijuana and the other hardcore drugs sure to follow, in to the homes of every citizen :rolleyes:

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/conv.htm

Furthermore, it has been proven that red wine which has alcohol in it actually is good for your liver. So alcohol in moderation can be good for you.Red Wine yeah, it's the antioxidants doing they're job (http://www.healthcastle.com/redwine-heart.shtml) (might want to take note on the last paragraph as well), but that's not to say "alcohol" in general is healthy for you. Sorry, but I don't see alot of college kids bar-hopping to sip on a nice Merlot. No, they're usually 2-fisting pints of the local flavor, which isn't the "healthy" alcohol..

And in moderation yeah... but that's the key to any drug isn't it? If I go drink a gallon of red wine, it ain't healthy. If I smoke a carton of cigarettes a day, it definitely isn't healthy. If I smoke an ounce of weed in a day, then I'll be in a coma.... ;)

Marijuana does have benefits "in moderation"... just as anything should only be done in moderation. Too much of anything is bound to cause problems.

MetalMark
07-02-2007, 02:10 PM
Here in The Netherlands it is already legal too a certain amount. Only the changes that they will actually check how much you have on you is VERY small.

Allronix
07-02-2007, 02:55 PM
As I tell folks, we legalized the wrong stuff. When I worked at restaurant, the guy with too much booze and not enough sense would come in, get belligerent, forget his order, try to grope me, and pass out in the parking lot.

The guy who rolled a couple joints usually waited peacefully for his ten cheeseburgers, tipped decently, and caused no trouble.

Then, we start getting into the genuine medical use. Because of its tendency to give one the munchies, it certainly can help cancer patients, AIDS sufferers, and anorexics. On the first two, it cancels out the nausea and lack of appetite that the other treatments bring. Glaucoma treatment by THC is well-documented. MS patients also show up at Hempfest, as the muscle relaxant and painkilling properties help with THAT condition.

Hemp itself is a different matter. It's banned under the pot laws - never frelling mind it would take smoking a telephone pole's worth to get a buzz. It could be a source of cheap and abundant fiber for making ropes, paper, even biodiesel! But the DuPont company (with the abundant interest in nylon), and the paper companies (who would lose money if paper was cheaper) have a vested interest in keeping up the "hemp=pot" party line.

I don't toke up. I got myself hot-boxed in college (high off the second hand smoke) because of a small room and a big party. Honestly, can't say I object. The buzz was quite nice. Better than being drunk, certainly.

Jae Onasi
07-02-2007, 03:01 PM
Marijuana can help lower pressure in the eyes of those with glaucoma, but the newer generation anti-glaucoma meds and recent advances in laser surgery work far better, and pretty much render that particular use moot. :)

Corinthian
07-02-2007, 03:40 PM
I agree that medical usage should be okay, there are some positive effects to it. The problem is that totally legalizing it to the point where you can roll down to the 7-11 and get a pack of MJ Cigs will cause more problems than it solves. For example, right now, the people dealing in dope only have to contend with other dealers. When the government legalizes and starts taxing it, they're going to have to cut their prices considerably to still be able to sell it, unless the government taxes the crap out of it like Tobacco cigarettes. A cigarette or alcohol habit is very expensive, and the stigma associated with MJ will mean that it will likely be taxed even more than tobacco. So people addicted to marijuana are going to have a choice - they can get it from illegal sources for far cheaper, or they can get it from legal sources and blow their money on it. Most people will opt for the former. This funnels money to drug lords, which goes into other forms of organized crime. Yes, I am aware this already happens. However, when marijuana is legal, you've got people getting hooked on the legal stuff that go to the illegal stuff because they can't get their fix on the amount they're able to get of legal stuff anymore.

TK-8252
07-02-2007, 04:14 PM
But Corinthian, the problem you're describing already exists with it illegal. Except that ALL pot users are forced to go the illegal way as of now. At least with legalization, a good deal of pot users... if not all of them... would go through legal routes to obtain the product. Pot doesn't need to be taxed any more than other products... the free market is the way to go my friend.

Nancy Allen``
07-02-2007, 06:31 PM
I think if it helps then yes it should. I heard that the only reason it isn't is because the government cannot profit from it. Any truth in that?

mimartin
07-02-2007, 06:37 PM
I think if it helps then yes it should. I heard that the only reason it isn't is because the government cannot profit from it. Any truth in that?

Actually they could make money from sales tax and you know this would have a high Sin Tax levied against it.

Nancy Allen``
07-02-2007, 06:40 PM
Sin Tax? Explain, sounds like the church getting a cut because it's something that's considered wrong.

mimartin
07-02-2007, 06:44 PM
Sin Tax? Explain, sounds like the church getting a cut because it's something that's considered wrong.

Sin tax is a euphemism for a tax specifically levied on certain generally socially-proscribed goods - usually alcohol and tobacco. Sin taxes are often enacted for special projects - American cities and counties have used them to pay for stadiums - when increasing income or property taxes would be politically inviable. The proper name for such taxes is sumptuary tax

Of course they might lose money by not being about to seize property of the casual users. Now they can legally seize property without due process in drug cases.

Corinthian
07-03-2007, 12:50 AM
Sin tax was what I was referring to. Mark my words, if it is legalized, it will be taxed to the Ninth Layer.

Samnmax221
07-03-2007, 01:07 AM
Sin tax was what I was referring to. Mark my words, if it is legalized, it will be taxed to the Ninth Layer.
That would be stupid and pointless, most people would continue to obtain it from smugglers.



Sin taxes are asinine, and thats coming from someone who has never had to pay one. The only one who should be making decisions involving someone's body should be that person.

Jae Onasi
07-03-2007, 01:39 AM
As someone who is paying taxes into the Medicare and Medicaid systems, I have a vested interest in reducing the amount of money I have to pay for someone else's self-inflicted lung cancer or COPD. Those who are going to abuse themselves should help pay more for their abuse-related medical problems.

Corinthian
07-03-2007, 02:35 AM
I'm not saying it's the most brilliant idea, Sam, but it's what would happen. It'd be better if it just stayed illegal, or at least highly controlled, at least Schedule II on the DEA charts. For those of you without the interest in looking it up, Schedule II means it can only be legally acquired by prescription, and even then supplies are closely monitored by the DEA.

PoiuyWired
07-03-2007, 02:14 PM
I would say Legalize it, and put a reasonable tax rate on it. Maybe a bit higher than cigarettes and alcohol, but not too much higher.

Allronix
07-03-2007, 02:35 PM
Jae, that's what the taxes would be FOR. Same as the taxes on cigarettes and booze - unless you want to try and ban those as well.

Agent Xim
07-03-2007, 02:47 PM
Legalize it? No. I really don't think the U.S. is prepared for legalization...
...but to continue the same lies fed to the public since Marijuana prohibition began in 1937 IS pretty ridiculous. A simple Google search will qualify that lol. I notice above that some people seem to be forming an opinion without first checking real facts when it comes to "Marijuana" or specifically Cannabis Sativa or more properly, Cannabis Indica (which is the primary strain used in Medicinal Cannabis). Do you believe everything the government tells you?

Jae Onasi
07-03-2007, 11:49 PM
Jae, that's what the taxes would be FOR. Same as the taxes on cigarettes and booze - unless you want to try and ban those as well.

That's what I was trying to say as well, but I wasn't real clear. That's what I get for posting that late at night. :D

I think a 'sin tax' is perfectly justified for tobacco and alcohol and if it ever gets legalized, pot, too. The people who are engaging in riskier behaviors should pay their share of taxes to contribute to paying for their future extra medical care. Basically, they should 'pay to play'.

Believe it or not, I haven't ever used pot (because I have the worst luck in the world getting caught at doing even the most minor naughty things like little white lies and speeding), and probably wouldn't use it if it was legalized due to my prescription medications and asthma (I suppose I could always bake some brownies, though....).

TK-8252
07-03-2007, 11:57 PM
Why do so many people think it should be taxed so highly? Is there no love for the free market here? No love for capitalism? And why would the U.S. not be ready for legalization? We're just as ready as ever. Our prisons are overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders, our police are too tied up with the War on Drugs to go after real criminals, and too many kids my age are getting off to bad starts in life as they're arrested, fined, have their license suspended, and given a long-lasting distrust of police. I find it hard to believe that this is even a debate. Common sense leads us to believe that legalization is the only sane thing to do.

Totenkopf
07-04-2007, 12:05 AM
Why do so many people think it should be taxed so highly? Is there no love for the free market here? No love for capitalism? And why would the U.S. not be ready for legalization? We're just as ready as ever. Our prisons are overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders, our police are too tied up with the War on Drugs to go after real criminals, and too many kids my age are getting off to bad starts in life as they're arrested, fined, have their license suspended, and given a long-lasting distrust of police. I find it hard to believe that this is even a debate. Common sense leads us to believe that legalization is the only sane thing to do.

Why do you think it should be an exception? It would get hit with "sin taxes" just like cigarettes. What do you envision as a fair price for a pack of blunts anyway? Matter of fact, the whole paraphenalia market could be bled as well as the legalized dope. Afterall, the government would ONLY allow it to be legalized b/c they'd be taxing it in the first place.

TK-8252
07-04-2007, 12:47 AM
Why do you think it should be an exception? It would get hit with "sin taxes" just like cigarettes. What do you envision as a fair price for a pack of blunts anyway? Matter of fact, the whole paraphenalia market could be bled as well as the legalized dope. Afterall, the government would ONLY allow it to be legalized b/c they'd be taxing it in the first place.

I'm a capitalist, and I don't think that there should be any kind of heavy taxes on any product. These taxes just create more criminal activity, and that means the government has to spend more money to have the police clean up to mess.

What is a fair price for a pack of blunts? What the market will bear. It's all about supply and demand. And if the government bureaucrats would only allow something to be legalized because they would make money off of it, then they're some greedy bastards who need to go find other jobs where they're not in the position to rob people of their money. There's something called freedom in this country, and perhaps they need to realize this concept.

John Galt
07-04-2007, 02:11 AM
I think that the entire war on drugs is unconstitutional. People should, in the end, be able to choose what they put into their bodies. The drugs that are now illegal were far, far less a problem in the late 19th century when they were legal and regulated(somewhat) in terms of purity. If drug production and consumption in general was legalized and conducted domestically it would be beneficial to the user(extensive quality regulations), to the government(fewer deaths due to overdose because of purity standards, tax revenue instead of wasted expenditures), and the world in general(elimination of illicit smuggling).

I think ending the prohibition of drugs would have much the same effect that ending prohibition of alcohol did-- reductions in overdoses(analogous to the effects of "bathtub gin"), and a rapid decrease in the criminal elements associated with the use of previously banned substances.

Totenkopf
07-04-2007, 04:34 AM
I'm a capitalist, and I don't think that there should be any kind of heavy taxes on any product. These taxes just create more criminal activity, and that means the government has to spend more money to have the police clean up to mess.

Yes, I concur with your position about low to minimal taxation. However, it's more likely that taxes have less to do with crime than the expense of the items in question or whether it's illegal in the first place. Using gas and cigarettes as examples, most people don't steal either due to the taxes on the products, but b/c there's a sudden increase in price or an inherent economic value that makes boosting them a good idea. For instance, when gas prices went up quickly this past year, people started filling their tanks and driving off w/o paying. Now you have to prepay at these places and get any change due AFTER filling your tank. Taxes have been high on the price of gas for awhile (govt making more/gallon than the gas stations selling it), w/o people resorting to a lot of stealing. With cigarettes, jack a rig with a load of cigs and you can make a very nice buck. But even that has less to do with the tax rate on cigs versus the demand for the product @ seemingly ANY price in the first place (especially something that easy to fence in the first place).


What is a fair price for a pack of blunts? What the market will bear. It's all about supply and demand. And if the government bureaucrats would only allow something to be legalized because they would make money off of it, then they're some greedy bastards who need to go find other jobs where they're not in the position to rob people of their money. There's something called freedom in this country, and perhaps they need to realize this concept.


What in your estimation do you think people would be willing to pay for a pack of joints if they were marketed? If you were smoking them, how much would YOU be willing to pay? My guess as to why it's not legalized is that a) there's more money involved in keeping it illegal than legalizing it (or at least for the individuals making that decision) and b) it helps keep law enforcement budgets higher than they might be otherwise.

TK-8252
07-04-2007, 05:56 PM
(I'm not replying to the first part of your post because for the most part I agree with it, so don't think I'm just ignoring it. ;) )

What in your estimation do you think people would be willing to pay for a pack of joints if they were marketed? If you were smoking them, how much would YOU be willing to pay?

This is actually a very difficult question to answer. All I can say is that supply and demand would give you a price. Perhaps it would be somewhat similar to the price for a pack of cigs, with more expensive brands and cheaper brands, of course.

There are some European countries with legal weed, but they're more socialist, so it's hard to tell what a free market would set the price of a pack of blunts to be.

Weave
07-14-2007, 04:34 PM
I am white. However, I don't have to be colored to realize that other whites have done severe damage to our society through their racism in the past (and to a lesser degree, in the present).

I agree. But what should it matter whether your white, black, brown, red, yellow, blue, male or female? We're all humans aren't we? We bleed don't we? It's foolish for everyone to think that they should label themselves based on their apperance...
Intolerance and greed has dealt one too many blows to this world. Same with religious intolerance too (can't we all just get along? Obviously, that concept is just too hard for some people to grasp). Then again, negative cultural steriotypes are too blame.

And as for the word "skinhead" let me enlighten everyone.
In Jamaica, the word "skinhead" was used to describe someone who was anti-rascist. (i.e. Skinhead Anti-Rascists). However, many Jamaicans imigrated to Britain during the middle and end of the 20th century. Unfortunately, British Neo-nazis took the word and started to use it to describe themselves, people who essentially propagate hate and bigotry.
Just thought I'd share that ;)



And as for cannibis... I think it should be legalized. First off, I know many people who toke up. MJ doesn't make you hostile, it calms you down! The people are relaxed and are more peaceful. Alcohol's effects are MUCH worse than pot's. Marijuana would have the same potential problem that any other legal drugs would have, or even less, im inclined to say. In fact, I think cigarettes are much worse than pot. I live in New Mexico, so medical marijuana is legal here... and i have to say that fatalities from unsuccessful medical treatments such as chemotheropy are generally lower, crime has dropped a bit, and SOME people seem to be much nicer. hahaha...

Actually exercise can become an addiction. There are people who lift weights too much and it becomes very unhealthy for their body. People can get addicted to gambling, running, video games, etc. This doesn't mean those things themselves are to blame, it just means that the person using it doesn't have the necessary willpower to give it up.

Cigarette addiction is an actual physical addiction, once a smoker stops getting their nicotine their body responds poorly to the loss of the chemical. This is not the case with marijuana, any 'addiction' is almost a purely willpower issue.

I agree hole-heartedly. I've seen many people who have gambling and exercise addictions and if they are in extreame desperation for those things... it's almost as bad as meth.
I have a slight music addiction :D
But essentially, dependency is something you chain yourself to.