PDA

View Full Version : Medicinal and Recreational use of Marijuana.


El Sitherino
10-01-2008, 02:37 PM
It's come up again lately with Frank's Bill and it's currently on the floor for several states, again. I'm curious about people's feelings and thoughts on this topic. What have you learned about Marijuana and it's use (including mis-use)? Are there questions you've ever wanted answers to?

I think it's about time we had this topic come back up, especially with the election and state reps re-thinking the situation.

I personally would like to see a de-criminalization in marijuana and education on proper treatment of the plant, or respect. For over 5,000 years every civilization has used it medicinally and recreationally in one form or another. The only negative side effects it contains as far as any study has concluded comes from the basic act of smoking (disregarding poor psychological management), rather than the plant itself, and as there are other means of making use of it (most popularly vaporizers and mixed in with food) there's simply no merit to restrict it based on the act of smoking alone, especially considering Cigarettes maintain legal status.

So anyway, while this is likely just a big topic between Jae and myself I am wondering what others input on the issue is.

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 03:11 PM
I don't really care to be honest, and by that I mean it shouldn't be illegal. Aside from bring a great source of revenue for companies, it'd be a lot easier to keep the stuff clean and keep the dangerous stuff off the streets. Of all the petty crimes people can be arrested for, Marijuana is probably one of the stupidest, what people do to their own bodies, for good or ill, should be their business. Provided that they're not turning themselves into living bombs or something, that would be negatively affecting others.

But yeah, I agree that cigarettes are far worse, and if we can smoke those, marijuana should be the same, along with the 18+ rule.

Astor
10-01-2008, 03:12 PM
An interesting topic.

Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, correct? And, as I understand it, that would make it the equivalent of a Class A drug in the UK? (At least, as close as it could be - US drug laws seem much stronger than UK ones)

So, as a Schedule I drug, it has no legal basis for medicinal purposes, correct?

There must be reasons why it is stil classified as such, or is it just because it's one of the most common drugs? Is there a large history of cannabis abuse in the US?

I'd just like to get some facts straight and some clarification before I actually comment any further.

Jae Onasi
10-01-2008, 03:45 PM
You might be surprised, Sithy. I'm not anti-pot. :lol: The only concern I have besides a potential drug addiction issue is that what happened to tobacco would happen to pot if it got legalized--companies manipulating the content of THC to increase the addiction level just like they did to nicotine in tobacco. I think, all legal issues aside, from the very limited study I've done on it, getting high on pot appears to have fewer side effects physically and socially than getting drunk. I don't think pot is innocuous, just as alcohol is not innocuous in terms of health. However, it appears that there is less aggressive behavior and fewer altercations with people high on pot than with drunks. I don't know what affect it would have on the DUI rate--there's probably no good way to compare the two since pot's been outlawed so long. I do have the concern that a use of pot might encourage use of far more dangerous illicit drugs, but I don't know what the numbers are of illicit drug users starting with pot and moving on to other more dangerous drugs vs. starting with other drugs first. I would be concerned about the increased smoking that would come with legalized pot. Smoking pot might theoretically be safer than cigarettes, but that's like saying drinking sulfuric acid is safer than hydrochloric acid because its pH is higher. Smoking is smoking, whether it's pot, nicotine, or something else.

I think medicinally pot does have its benefits. My great-aunt's mother died of cancer, and the only thing that relieved some of her nausea and some of her suffering at the end was pot. Granted, that was 50 years ago when we didn't have the same medications we have now, but it would be an option for those who are allergic to the anti-nausea meds that are currently available.
Pot is not an adequate anti-glaucoma drug, however. It doesn't drop the eye pressure enough, and with varying amounts of THC it can't do it reliably enough. Since older people are the ones who tend to get glaucoma, and many older people are on various medications, a topical eye drop presents fewer side effects than systemic THC or meds. There are new laser treatments and surgeries that are so effective that drops and systemic medications are no longer even needed in some cases--in fact, laser surgery is one of the first options used in the UK rather than eye drops (an opposite philosophy to the 'drops first, then surgery' one in the US) because of the effectiveness.

what people do to their own bodies, for good or ill, should be their business.That would work great if they never caused problems that required services my taxes pay for, like police, ambulance, and ER visits, but it doesn't work that way.

@Astor--pot's a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (the schedule goes from I-V)

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 04:59 PM
That would work great if they never caused problems that required services my taxes pay for, like police, ambulance, and ER visits, but it doesn't work that way.
I dunno, I thinka more liberalized system that allows you to do what you want to yourself would also come with the clause that if you do something stupid to yourself we reserve the right to refuse to treat you.

@Astor--pot's a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (the schedule goes from I-V)

It's also a Schedule 1 drug for political reasons. There is no way that other Schedule 1 drugs that Marijuana is listed with(it's listed with Hallucinogenic drugs), such peyote and meth, have effects anything like MJ. Here's a list of Schedule 1 drugs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs

it's plain silly.

Jae Onasi
10-01-2008, 05:38 PM
I dunno, I thinka more liberalized system that allows you to do what you want to yourself would also come with the clause that if you do something stupid to yourself we reserve the right to refuse to treat you.ERs are required to treat people regardless of level of intelligence. Good luck getting the average paramedic, nurse, or doctor not to treat someone in an emergency. :D
It's also a Schedule 1 drug for political reasons.
it's plain silly.
I wasn't making any kind of statement on that other than confirming it was Schedule I. :)

Corinthian
10-01-2008, 07:43 PM
Chemical or Biological weapons in general are pretty nasty tools of war, although I haven't heard anything about Meth or Cocaine being weaponized. Doesn't strike me as being all that effective when there's much more efficient stuff like Sarin. What's your source?

Achilles
10-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Question: how do we legalize (or more specifically, regulate) usage of a drug while ensuring public safety?

My personal opinion is that if responsible adults (i.e. not kids or teenagers) want to use drugs recreationally in their own homes (or homes of others), then that's their business. If they want to use drugs and then drive, operate heavy machinery, try to make important decisions about my health or the economy, etc, then I have a problem.

Yes, many of these same concerns should be (and are leveled) against the legal drug, alcohol, however that doesn't mean that the same status should be applied to other drugs. The affects of marijuana (and other drugs) can be felt long after the high has worn off, meaning that users are still impaired after visual signs of use have worn off.

El Sitherino
10-01-2008, 08:33 PM
Chemical or Biological weapons in general are pretty nasty tools of war, although I haven't heard anything about Meth or Cocaine being weaponized. Doesn't strike me as being all that effective when there's much more efficient stuff like Sarin.
I had never claimed they were specifically weapons of war, simply weaponized agents. Perhaps they're being tested for espionage to find out secrets, get informants to act a certain way for them. I don't think any of us will know or find out any time soon. The only reason I know is I remember an article discussing it back in 1998 and a friends dad who worked with Secret Service on some of the initial developments and tests, just as he told me about things he did in Vietnam and other places.
So, who knows.

Question: how do we legalize (or more specifically, regulate) usage of a drug while ensuring public safety?

The same you do any other way...


My personal opinion is that if responsible adults (i.e. not kids or teenagers) want to use drugs recreationally in their own homes (or homes of others), then that's their business. If they want to use drugs and then drive, operate heavy machinery, try to make important decisions about my health or the economy, etc, then I have a problem.

Right. I think everyone has a problem with someone stupid getting ****ed up and doing generally stupid things because of said chemical alteration within the mind. I think regardless of legal status far more people get ****faced and work than get stoned and work. Or rather to further analyze the idea, I propose that more people get ****faced and mess things up than people get high and mess things up.

Yes, many of these same concerns should be (and are leveled) against the legal drugs, alcohol, however that doesn't mean that the same status should be applied to other drugs. The affects of marijuana (and other drugs) can be felt long after the high has worn off, meaning that users are still impaired after visual signs of use have worn off.
Alcohol has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana. Tobacco has a longer lasting negative effect on the body than marijuana.
And even habitual coffee ingestion has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana.

In fact it has been shown that brain cells "destroyed" from smoke inhilation (note, destruction has only been shown to occur in smoking itself, not other means of ingestion) will regenerate normally within hours of the time in which the smoking took place. So by the time you're no longer high, you're no longer suspended from regions of your brain.

SW01
10-01-2008, 09:25 PM
Something that concerns me about this idea is not really the health or effects on the user, it is what may happen to others. The same argument as second hand tobacco inhalation from smoking. The problem I see is that Cannabis has a more immediate and profound effect than 'legalised' drugs, namely the depressive (and hallucinogenic? not sure) effects. A risk is that others may be put in harm's way by such things if public usage becomes acceptable through secondary inhalation of the drug. The same immediate effect doesn't exist with tobacco, and certainly doesn't exist with alcohol.

El Sitherino
10-01-2008, 10:02 PM
Something that concerns me about this idea is not really the health or effects on the user, it is what may happen to others. The same argument as second hand tobacco inhalation from smoking. The problem I see is that Cannabis has a more immediate and profound effect than 'legalised' drugs, namely the depressive (and hallucinogenic? not sure) effects. A risk is that others may be put in harm's way by such things if public usage becomes acceptable through secondary inhalation of the drug. The same immediate effect doesn't exist with tobacco, and certainly doesn't exist with alcohol.
How exactly will this issue present itself of a mass scale, if any scale at all. Unlike thicker tobacco smoke marijuana doesn't exactly have the same lingering effect. As well I'm fairly certain there will be public intoxication rules just the same as alcohol. If you could present to me an example of how this may occur as a genuine risk that'd be great.


As well I'd like to remove this mystic image of pot instantly causing fits of laughter and visions.

First, you'll be relatively the same upon inhalation, most of the effect for marijuana is sedative as the more popular strands come from indica based cannabis plants. As well a sense of lightheartedness and merriment will overtake people, but this is no different than you would have after having just accomplished the coolest thing ever. Marijuana simply presents cannabinols to the receptors on the brain in the same fashion they would after rewarding hormone release.
That isn't to say all people are affected the same, however generally it's not some over-powering drug, I'd honestly be more worried about someone with their vicodin prescription. As well just because a drug is legal does not make it safe, I point you to prescription meds and namely those based off of opium. These are in fact the biggest contributors to drug violence on top of rising cocaine competition and heroin stings.

Second, reported hallucinogenic effects come in the state of a dream or are simply placebo effect in the same vain that we see things in the ceiling or clouds.

If there are any other questions or some confusion anyone may feel about the topic I, and I'm sure Jae will be glad to help, will be glad to clear up any issues or comments.

Jae Onasi
10-01-2008, 11:55 PM
Folks, just a reminder, speaking about illegal activities on Lucasforums is not allowed. This is a public forum, and no one here wants to attract the attention of authorities, and I sure as heck do not want to get calls from authorities or LF owners on why we allowed discussion of illegal activities to exist on the forum. I do not want to hear about anyone's personal use/misuse, purchase, possession, or other illegal activities involving drugs. Please keep it an objective discussion steered very clear of any hint of illegal actions, or I'll have to shut this one down. Thanks.

Achilles
10-02-2008, 12:02 AM
The same you do any other way... This isn't an answer because we do a piss-poor job of regulating for public safety with regards to those substances which are already legal. We're upping the ante here, so I think a legitimate response has to likewise take this into account.

Right. I think everyone has a problem with someone stupid getting ****ed up and doing generally stupid things because of said chemical alteration within the mind. I think regardless of legal status far more people get ****faced and work than get stoned and work. Or rather to further analyze the idea, I propose that more people get ****faced and mess things up than people get high and mess things up. Sithy, I would very much be interested in taking a look at whatever statistics you're basing this on. I'll say at the outset that inconsistencies in drug testing policies vs self-selection in survey data, etc makes this conclusion very difficult for me to accept.

I'm not interesting in digging out my old text books, etc to support my point, but I will tell you that based on the various materials I had to read for my undergrad and grad degrees in organizational management, I think your info is wrong. If at some point I care enough to back up my argument with sources, I will but feel free to take this with a grain of salt in the mean time.

Alcohol has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana. Tobacco has a longer lasting negative effect on the body than marijuana.
And even habitual coffee ingestion has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana.

In fact it has been shown that brain cells "destroyed" from smoke inhilation (note, destruction has only been shown to occur in smoking itself, not other means of ingestion) will regenerate normally within hours of the time in which the smoking took place. So by the time you're no longer high, you're no longer suspended from regions of your brain.I would be very interested in taking a look at whatever sources you care to provide (if you care to do so). Again, I'm not going to be very invested in this thread so don't go out of your way. I do hope that if you do choose to do so, it won't be something published in High Times that was funded by pro-legalization group :)

This will probably be my last post in this thread, so you all have fun :D

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-02-2008, 12:24 AM
Sithy, I would very much be interested in taking a look at whatever statistics you're basing this on. I'll say at the outset that inconsistencies in drug testing policies vs self-selection in survey data, etc makes this conclusion very difficult for me to accept.

I'm not interesting in digging out my old text books, etc to support my point, but I will tell you that based on the various materials I had to read for my undergrad and grad degrees in organizational management, I think your info is wrong. If at some point I care enough to back up my argument with sources, I will but feel free to take this with a grain of salt in the mean time.

I would be very interested in taking a look at whatever sources you care to provide (if you care to do so). Again, I'm not going to be very invested in this thread so don't go out of your way. I do hope that if you do choose to do so, it won't be something published in High Times that was funded by pro-legalization group :)http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

This (http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf) in particular.

Tommycat
10-02-2008, 01:25 AM
Right. I think everyone has a problem with someone stupid getting ****ed up and doing generally stupid things because of said chemical alteration within the mind. I think regardless of legal status far more people get ****faced and work than get stoned and work. Or rather to further analyze the idea, I propose that more people get ****faced and mess things up than people get high and mess things up.
got a per capita comparison between alcohol and marijuana? See less people do marijuana than drink. Alcohol is more readily available. and of course it's been in our societies for darn near 10k years... (as far back as recorded history goes). We think of it as safe. Many people don't view pot as safe. So if they do they are more likely to keep it moderate.


Alcohol has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana. Tobacco has a longer lasting negative effect on the body than marijuana.
And even habitual coffee ingestion has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana.

In fact it has been shown that brain cells "destroyed" from smoke inhilation (note, destruction has only been shown to occur in smoking itself, not other means of ingestion) will regenerate normally within hours of the time in which the smoking took place. So by the time you're no longer high, you're no longer suspended from regions of your brain.
Of course that is in moderation see alcohol in moderation does not leave longer lasting negative effects. In fact it has been shown to have positive effects... the key is moderation.

as for the public safety concerns: I do have one question. Cop pulls someone over for suspected DUI. How does he check to see if the person had enough marijuana to constitute being impaired?

Jae Onasi
10-02-2008, 01:36 AM
My personal opinion is that if responsible adults (i.e. not kids or teenagers) want to use drugs recreationally in their own homes (or homes of others), then that's their business.Good point on the differentiation between adults and minors. Our brains are not fully developed until our very early 20's and some of these drugs could have adverse effects.

The line on personal use becomes blurred when talking about something as highly addictive and physically as destructive as heroin or meth--when someone becomes addicted to, say, meth and destroys their brain to the point that they become gorks on welfare and medicaid in a nursing home, and my tax dollars are now paying for their care, then it's a public rather than private issue. Some drugs do need to be regulated because they're extremely dangerous in use and/or production. The process used to create meth, for instance, is quite dangerous and involves using highly flammable and toxic agents.

I don't know about the accuracy of Sithy's info on drugs, alcohol, and the workplace--I haven't seen any data on it. I do know we generally get better work out of people who are unimpaired by drugs of any kind. :)

There are medical journals that research use and abuse of psychoactive drugs, and since drug addiction is considered a mental illness, research shows up in those journals as well--they might shed some insight on impairment rates for various drugs and alcohol. Studies can be done with Schedule I drugs, but they are highly regulated to a much greater degree than other Schedule drugs. More often than not, they are retrospective studies done on people who came into the medical system already using drugs rather than prospective studies that randomize people into the drug user group. Obviously, randomizing someone into a meth-user or other highly addictive drug group would be highly unethical..... Medical knowledge and observation of people who are already using the drug illicitly would give public officials an idea of the safety profile of a particular drug or alcohol/other chemical and thus whether it should be evaluated for legalization. It is harder to study drug use/abuse because people fear being turned into authorities and so are not nearly as forthcoming with their use. For instance, I have had 3 people reveal to me in 15 years that they used illicit drugs, and I know darn well that more than 3 in 25,000+ people that I've seen take drugs, particularly when they come in smelling like pot and are so mellow they nearly fall asleep in my chair.

I do have to clarify the brain cell issue. Neurons in the brain, once they die, are gone forever. Peripheral neurons can regenerate, brain/spinal cord neurons cannot. There are other cells in the brain that support neurons (e.g. astrocytes) that are 'brain cells' that can regenerate, but the brain neurons that actually transmit the electrical signals in the brain are not reparable.

I'd also like to talk about the second-hand smoke issue--you can get a secondary high off of pot (though you'd have to be around a lot of it) and you can get second hand nicotine exposure from someone else who smokes. The level and immediacy of THC effects would depend on a lot of factors--amount of pot smoked around the person, amount of THC in that particular amount of pot (pot can have differing amounts of THC just like tobacco can have differing amounts of nicotine), length of exposure, etc.

A quick run through on PubMed with search terms cannabis and attention deficit disorder list studies showing drug use/abuse being significantly higher in ADD/ADHD groups than in non-ADD/ADHD groups, and it's listed in some studies as co-morbid conditions. I have not seen something (yet) indicating THC as being as or more effective than medications like Ritalin, but I didn't search very long at all. My guess would be that if drug abuse is higher in the ADD/HD group, researchers will be very reluctant to try pot as a possible treatment for fear of causing a frank addiction problem.

Achilles
10-02-2008, 01:39 AM
jmac, thanks for the links, however I'm not sure what death rates have to do with what we were discussing (specifically, workplace impairment, etc).

Just so I'm clear, I'm not against adults doing whatever they want to themselves in the privacy of their own homes. My concern is public safety (and just so I can hopefully head off any future strawmen/red herrings, this applies to alcohol as well).

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-02-2008, 02:04 AM
jmac, thanks for the links, however I'm not sure what death rates have to do with what we were discussing (specifically, workplace impairment, etc).They included figures for the effects of just alcohol/tobacco and drunk driving deaths, which addressed sithy's assertions that "Alcohol has longer lasting negative effects on the body than marijuana. Tobacco has a longer lasting negative effect on the body than marijuana" and "...more people get ****faced and mess things up than people get high and mess things up...", respectively.

El Sitherino
10-02-2008, 11:11 AM
got a per capita comparison between alcohol and marijuana? See less people do marijuana than drink. Alcohol is more readily available. and of course it's been in our societies for darn near 10k years... (as far back as recorded history goes). We think of it as safe. Many people don't view pot as safe. So if they do they are more likely to keep it moderate.

No I do no, however I know alcohol is actually only roughly 6,000 years old and is the blame for many deaths. Marijuana has been used medicinally and recreationally since before writing civilizations (that trumps even the claim of 10,000 years) and has no recordable related deaths.
People unsafe view of marijuana didn't come until the 30's when the DuPont company and others had issues with hemp and marijuana competing with their business as hemp and marijuana are easily planted and grown. On top of that their products are easier to produce and contain less harsh chemicals.


Of course that is in moderation see alcohol in moderation does not leave longer lasting negative effects. In fact it has been shown to have positive effects... the key is moderation.

Well of course, I'm not advocating people go out there and smoke a pound in 24 hours.

as for the public safety concerns: I do have one question. Cop pulls someone over for suspected DUI. How does he check to see if the person had enough marijuana to constitute being impaired?

The way they do now, the standard mobility tests, breathilizer, followed by you peeing in a cup or they prick your finger for a blood test.
Court orders can also be a wonder.

While our current models of public safety for alcohol and tobacco aren't that great, I don't think that's reason to deny de-criminalizing a harmless drug. People are free to remove the dangerous side effects by making it with food or vaporizing, but they are free to choose to simply smoke it. I think it reasonable to conclude that by and large, marijuana has been shown to be safe itself. Alcohol in itself is a devil and a friend, tobacco has no possitive effects.

To me it simply makes sense.

A quick run through on PubMed with search terms cannabis and attention deficit disorder list studies showing drug use/abuse being significantly higher in ADD/ADHD groups than in non-ADD/ADHD groups, and it's listed in some studies as co-morbid conditions. I have not seen something (yet) indicating THC as being as or more effective than medications like Ritalin, but I didn't search very long at all. My guess would be that if drug abuse is higher in the ADD/HD group, researchers will be very reluctant to try pot as a possible treatment for fear of causing a frank addiction problem.

Drug abuse is indeed higher in those with ADD/ADHD due to the nature of the condition. It's like those with bi-polar and clinical depression.
I'd think you are correct that upfront treatment with marijuana in the US is a hesitant topic since there is no standard for proper counseling during the treatment.

Tommycat
10-03-2008, 12:47 AM
No I do no, however I know alcohol is actually only roughly 6,000 years old and is the blame for many deaths. Marijuana has been used medicinally and recreationally since before writing civilizations (that trumps even the claim of 10,000 years) and has no recordable related deaths.
Where are you getting the use of marijuana exceeding recorded history. I'm not saying alcohol is limited to recorded history. We have found that the mesopotamians were drinking it. There was also evidence that the pyramid builders drank alcoholic beverages. Even lower primates are known to eat fermented fruit for the experience. So I'm saying that we know up until the point of recorded history, but can only infer beyond that. Canibis history I can only go back to about 6000 BC and the first medicinal use in around 2700 BC. Beer is older than wine(they found relics from prehistoric brew), and wine was being cultivated as early as 6000 BC.

People unsafe view of marijuana didn't come until the 30's when the DuPont company and others had issues with hemp and marijuana competing with their business as hemp and marijuana are easily planted and grown. On top of that their products are easier to produce and contain less harsh chemicals.
sounds like something out of high times... Source?

Well of course, I'm not advocating people go out there and smoke a pound in 24 hours.
I would hope not. Considering there are people that are alergic to different things, and it could in fact lead to respiratory distress. I know of at least one person that had to be rushed to a hospital because he had a severe allergic reaction to his exposure to it. I know this person VERY well. I of course didn't tell the doctors what had caused the onset.

The way they do now, the standard mobility tests, breathilizer, followed by you peeing in a cup or they prick your finger for a blood test.
Court orders can also be a wonder.
But as far as I know blood and urine tests do not show imediately. Not like the 8 hrs alcohol stays in the system... So if you get pulled over how do you keep from either being falsely accused, or allowing people to get away with driving under the influence.

While our current models of public safety for alcohol and tobacco aren't that great, I don't think that's reason to deny de-criminalizing a harmless drug. People are free to remove the dangerous side effects by making it with food or vaporizing, but they are free to choose to simply smoke it. I think it reasonable to conclude that by and large, marijuana has been shown to be safe itself. Alcohol in itself is a devil and a friend, tobacco has no possitive effects.
While I may agree with you on the viability of tobacco. Sorry, what independant study has been done on the use of marijuana for extended periods of time that show marijuana as safe. How about HEAVY use of it? Lets face it lots of americans tend to overdo things. and again, I have had a severe reaction to it. I know at least two other people that have had these types of reactions to it(my dad being one of them... must be genetic...).

Pho3nix
10-03-2008, 12:51 PM
I personally would like to see a de-criminalization in marijuana and education on proper treatment of the plant, or respect. For over 5,000 years every civilization has used it medicinally and recreationally in one form or another. The only negative side effects it contains as far as any study has concluded comes from the basic act of smoking (disregarding poor psychological management), rather than the plant itself, and as there are other means of making use of it (most popularly vaporizers and mixed in with food) there's simply no merit to restrict it based on the act of smoking alone, especially considering Cigarettes maintain legal status.
This pretty much sums up my exact thoughts on the topic at hand.

To me, It seems that there's a clear double standard. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal but when it comes to Cannabis "everyone" (eg. politicians) are always quick to jump on the "Pot leads to heavier drugs" wagon. The attitude when it comes to pot is (in my opinion) quite negative, so if I'd get drunk every weekend the behavior would be deemed "normal" (at least to Finnish standards, heh) but if I told people I smoked pot on weekends I would be deemed a drug addict of some sort. I think it all comes down to attitude.

Tommycat
10-03-2008, 11:37 PM
I should probably state that I actually am for the legalization of marijuana as a drug. I just can't in good concience support it as legal in the way tobacco and alcohol are. The main reason is there is no way to efficiently set a legal limit the way we do with BAC tests for drivers. I mean there's no breath test we can do to see if someone was legally impaired by marijuana. It's too subjective. He looks stoned.

Q
10-06-2008, 09:27 AM
While reading through this thread I was wondering if anyone viewed the US' "war on drugs" as I do. Apparently not.

I'm reminded of a certain, short-lived sketch on Late Night with Conan O'Brien that aired once or twice and was never shown again. It was called Tokey, The Anti-Drug Bong and featured a guy, dressed as a bong, spewing forth anti-drug propaganda along with "sweet, sweet marijuana smoke." This sketch illustrates my view (and apparently Conan O'brien's as well) of the "war on drugs" perfectly. You have the government-controlled media clamoring in one ear to "just say 'no'" while it while it whispers "just say 'yes'" in the other. It's nothing but pure, political, hypocritical doublespeak.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility, however remote, that the government actually wants a certain percentage of the population to use drugs? A certain percentage that, while it resents the govenment's telling it what to do, how to live and, most importantly, what to think would otherwise never even consider any type of criminal behavior? Perhaps this is why marijuana in particular is presented as a personal freedom issue and a perfectly harmless method of rebellion. Anyone who falls for the doublespeak therefore makes himself/herself vulnerable to government oppression in the form of arrest, jail time, fines and seizures (legal theft).

The government profits twofold from this. Not only does it reduce an otherwise potentially troublesome group of free-thinking individuals (as opposed to the brainwashed sheep/lemmings that make up the majority) to the status of convicted criminals, but it also makes a bundle off of fines and proceeds from the sale of seized (legally stolen) properties to feed our already-bloated "criminal justice" :roleyess: system. The downside to this scheme is that it undermines the legitimacy of the system when it comes to the prevention and prosecution of real crime.

In conclusion I contend that while it is true that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, even when smoked, it should not be used while it remains illegal because it gives the government an excuse to reduce your status to that of "second-class citizen" even if you have never before committed a truly criminal act.

Don't give the ****ers a way in.

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 05:37 PM
The paranoia in the above post makes me look well-adjusted, and I sleep with weapons under my bed.

Nedak
10-06-2008, 09:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZdAiWw_ys8 (by the way the titles are misleading).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QacDkZ3NrGQ&feature=related

http://www.americandrugwar.com/

Bimmerman
10-07-2008, 01:49 AM
Personally, I have no problem with people getting stoned if they want to. As long as they aren't endangering me, I don't care. I fully support legalization even though I've never used nor plan to smoke it.

As far as the argument that only adults should be able to smoke it, that's a good idea but impossible to implement. The same idea goes for cigarettes, alcohol, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc, but kids get and use them all the same with alarming ease. Any parent who thinks their kids cannot get drugs at school is....really really really stupid. Back in high school a good 30-40% of my senior class smoked pot or did real drugs. An even higher percentage of those in my AP/IB classes smoked. It was easier to find weed, booze, or coke than cigarettes back then. Just cause there are penalties for use while a minor or use at all doesn't prevent anything.

Web Rider
10-07-2008, 02:07 AM
As far as the argument that only adults should be able to smoke it, that's a good idea but impossible to implement. The same idea goes for cigarettes, alcohol, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc, but kids get and use them all the same with alarming ease. Any parent who thinks their kids cannot get drugs at school is....really really really stupid. Back in high school a good 30-40% of my senior class smoked pot or did real drugs. An even higher percentage of those in my AP/IB classes smoked. It was easier to find weed, booze, or coke than cigarettes back then. Just cause there are penalties for use while a minor or use at all doesn't prevent anything.

Well sure, having laws against something doesn't stop it from ever happening, it does however, provide a deterrent and limits the amount using it. Sure, a lot of people won't do them simply because they don't like them. But you have to admit, it'd be a lot easier for more people to do them if they were sold at the local market and anyone could get them and pass them around at school or some such.