View Full Version : Should marijuana be legalized??
Sweet & Intellectual
Sep25-04, 06:29 PM
Thanks for the idea on a new thread Goku!
I have to admit I haven't researched in depth, however in my opinion, I think that ANY drug that can cause brain damage as expressed somewhere on this page http://www.amenclinic.com/ac/default.asp shouldn't be legal. It is said to cause short term memory loss, and like a lot of other medical problems there is typically more than one treatment for each one. Therefore, I would rather not bring something that is potentially harmful into the hands of an MD, let along the mind of a sick person.
i_wish_i_was_smart
Sep25-04, 06:32 PM
ya sure, more income for the government
Gokul43201
Sep25-04, 06:40 PM
Smoking causes lung damage and drinking causes liver damage. In fact, watching TV for long periods leads to deterioration of eyesight.
Should they all (and virtually every other act known to man is harmful in some way) be criminalized ?
Legalization allows regulation, which allows (some) control over distribution and consumption. Clearly, criminalization hasn't made a dent in the trafficking or consumption of marijuana.
Sweet & Intellectual
Sep25-04, 06:48 PM
To me, that just seems like more reason not to smoke, drink, or watch too much tv? I mean, I don't plan on living in a whole my entire life, so if my eyes deteriorate a little over 100 years, I am OK with that. However, I am not OK with liver damage, lung cancer or memory loss. I guess it's just all about what you want out of life.
i_wish_i_was_smart
Sep25-04, 07:11 PM
Smoking causes lung damage and drinking causes liver damage. In fact, watching TV for long periods leads to deterioration of eyesight.
Should they all (and virtually every other act known to man is harmful in some way) be criminalized ?
Legalization allows regulation, which allows (some) control over distribution and consumption. Clearly, criminalization hasn't made a dent in the trafficking or consumption of marijuana.
exactly my thoughts, although i dont do it myself on a regular basis, well all except drinking lol, i dont see why people should have a criminal record for a grame of pot, it makes no sense
To me, that just seems like more reason not to smoke, drink, or watch too much tv? I mean, I don't plan on living in a whole my entire life, so if my eyes deteriorate a little over 100 years, I am OK with that. However, I am not OK with liver damage, lung cancer or memory loss. I guess it's just all about what you want out of life.
it would seem sweet, that you know little of marijuana...in fact, it was legal up until the 30's and hemp-a bi-product of marijuana was used as a sturdy fiber in many industries.
you probably don't know the underlying reasons why marijuana is illegal-the stuff the general public doesn't know without research. please do realize first that hemp has nothing to do with the drug content in marijuana-THC is what gets a person high, but smoking hemp will do no such thing. hemp has been proven to be a better resource for the paper, lumber, cotton and even oil industry. it can be made into paper, a sturdy fabric and even a fuel. if marijuana is legal, then these industries can easily be shut down, thus hurting corporations needy for the american consumers ignorance.
sure marijuana can cause lung cancer-if you smoke 20-40 joints a day. which is the same as a pack of cigarrettes. if you have any experience with it, you will soon realize most don't smoke more then one a day due to its potency. that is a ridiculous amount that most "addicts" hardly achieve, let alone extremely expensive.
also, here's an interesting link of how marijuana was proven to fight brain cancer in mice:
Brain cancer and marijuana (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EA0BF-1BE4-1121-927783414B7F4945)
i truly believe more research needs to be done on the medicinal usage of this basic plant that can grow anywhere in this world. those who shout out how horrible it is, are truly uninformed at it's positive uses. and a general rule of thumb about this substance and ANY substance (from alcohol to sugar):
EVERYTHING IN MODERATION
sweet, i don't advocate doing illegal things, but please think for yourself and don't believe everything television puts in your face. it would seem clear to me that you are bowled over by the propaganda from the media from those who don't want you to know the real truth.
decibel
Sep25-04, 09:19 PM
I dont think marijuana is necessarily bad for you if you do it once in a while. I smoke marijuana almost once every couple of days, and it doesent really effect me at all. I have grades in the 80% range, and will be going to university next year for engineering, i also have a job, and it doesent effect me there either. It really lets me relax, clear my mind up, ease the tension, you know....just letting go of reality for an hour and zooming off elsewhere, the high is just temporary, and your back to your normal self in an hour or 2, this is one of the main reasons why so many people choose cannibus over other drugs, its cheap, safe, effective, and the best part, its not even very addictive!
Gokul43201
Sep25-04, 09:21 PM
it would seem sweet, that you know little of marijuana...
Why should that be sweet ? :confused:
sweet, i don't advocate doing illegal things, but please think for yourself and don't believe everything television puts in your face.
Aah, you mean Sweet. :approve:
humanino
Sep25-04, 09:28 PM
I dont think marijuana is necessarily bad for you
If you really do it every two days, you should be aware that it affects your concentration, and more badly your memorization capacities.
KaneOris
Sep25-04, 09:37 PM
Speaking from alot and alot of personal expirience(i use to smoke about 2 grams a day)
Society would be so stuffed up if marijuana was legalised
Think of how many kids have binge drinking problems in america
Here in australia, one of the greens policies is to legalize marijuana and ecstasy, i mean with a policy like that, its obvious they couldnt run a country
decibel
Sep25-04, 09:58 PM
If you really do it every two days, you should be aware that it affects your concentration, and more badly your memorization capacities.
i'm gonna have to disagree, i'v been doing it for about 5 years, and my memory has had no negatives towards it, i'v recently (thursday) had a 6 page history test, which i got 90%. It does however badly effect you if you smoke it and not compensate for the "highness" in other way such as studying and working out, i work out everyday and can run long distance very well, the marijuana doesent effect me in that either. But if you just smoke everyday all the time and not do anything else (also known as being a bum), then that my friend, is not a very healthy life.
JasonRox
Sep25-04, 10:31 PM
Weed won't affect memory loss at a young age, besides those 2 hours of idiocy. I say idiocy because this is the feeling I get, which is great, when I tried it.
Humans are given a large supply of brain cells, and more than enough to last a life time. Of course, it is assumed someone would live a normal life, and lose some brain cells from banging head and what not.
The problem here is that people who do not notice it yet, are only young. They haven't lived very long. You still have a long way to go with those brain cells, and if you get rid of them all in the first 20-25 years of your life, the next 30-40 years, well let's just say you won't remember them.
Have you ever noticed why the old guy in That 70's Show is dumb? He smokes just as much as everyone else right, and everyone else is fine.
Think about it.
Note: I did it half a dozen times, and it is better than getting drunk, in my opinion.
The other reason why you think you don't have memory loss is because you have nothing to compare to. Comparing it to before? You can't do that because before you never thought about memory loss before hand, so the only way to test it now is to quit for a bit. Everyone I talked to, who were heavy smokers, admitted an increase in concentration and memory after quitting for awhile(month or more). I never met anyone who disagreed, and I'm including the potheads who support it 100%.
Try it for yourself! You probably won't have to study to get 90's.
humanino
Sep25-04, 10:47 PM
I agree. I used to do it before, and I thought I was fine, because I was at the top of the class, and I needed not much work either. I have nothing to regret. It is even worse : the reason I began, was that, being at the top without working much made the other think I was not normal. I kept havoing interests in things outside the program, and I was considered different, and of course nobody wants that. So I decided to hang around with those messy guys, so that I was not normal only because I had good marks, but still I was a "cool dude". I am only definitely positive : even once every other day as I did at that time, you are already seriously affected. You can afford it : great ! Quit it, you won't miss it at all, you will save money if you have to pay for it, you will gain concentration and memorization capabilities, you will have two more hours every other day to read. Or maybe everybody is different.
weed, just like any other type of drug doesn't cause damage to the body in small qualities. However, when used over a prolonged period of time in large quantities it CAN damage the body. If you have 6 beers in your lifetime, you won't get addicted or die of scirrocis- but how many people have JUST 6 beers in thier lifetimes? It's the mentally addictive property leading to heavy use and/or abuse which leads to problems. Just like you won't get lung cancer if you smoke 1 pack of ciggarettes your entire life- but who smokes just ONE pack? Addiction starts with justification of temporary use-but it never stays that way. unless your familiar with the psychology of addiction, you can't understand the reasoning behind it.
So if you can't stop with just one beer or one pack of ciggarettes, why would you stop at a couple of joints? Mental addiction can be as powerful as physical addiction. Can you lead a normal life and smoke weed? I know quite a few people- sucessful people who smoke it. I've done it a few times in my life before- enough to know that it wasn't a big deal, or something I wanted to do on a regular basis. beer is cheaper. And if you legalized weed, it would be even MORE expensive than it is now- if you can imagine.
About that Australian green party bill.. THC and MDM, or X aren't even in the same drug category, and can't be compared. X releases all the seratonin in your brain which causes your body to heat up. use too much and you will die. Prolonged use causes depression, mood swings, and does all sorts of things to your mental stability- and it DOES affect your brain functions by overheating your brain basically.
I put people who use MDM in the same category as hardcore drug users and people who sniff aeresol cans to get high. They are idiots, plain and simple, and lack basic common sense. And if you're justifying using it, you're an addict.
humanino
Sep25-04, 11:00 PM
Maybe I did not consume much, but I never missed weed one single second. When I decided to quit cigarettes, it was another business. I did not really miss it, but I have been nervous for several days.
I really think I had a small consumption, and I did notice a difference, without rationnaly asking myself "is it different now ?", no, the difference was forced to my eyes.
Loren Booda
Sep25-04, 11:51 PM
Pot interferes with socialization, memory and emergency reaction. A hallucinogen, it can precipitate underlying mental illnesses. The "better" it makes you feel, the more chance you will eventually not be able to function without a joint, bong and bag on your person.
THC is fat-soluble, staying in the brain for at least a month. If you feel you need to self-medicate, try asking a doctor for more appropriate talk- or drug-therapy; every major pharmaceutical has a billion dollars worth of research behind itself. The legal medical uses of pot - for cancer, AIDS and other primarily terminal diseases - indicate that only in extreme cases is active marijuana warranted. Marinol, for instance, is one hemp extract for nausea (antiemetic) that doesn't get one high.
Industrial hemp can be bred with very low THC content, and the only legal use of its seeds is by those sterilized for bird food. It has been conjectured that THC arose to disorient birds attacking the marijuana plant. Did human brains evolve to poison themselves? Trip you must, but take the challenge of finding how to without street drugs.
Moonbear
Sep26-04, 01:22 AM
It does seem to have some medicinal value, so I'd like to see it legal for dispensing by prescription for those who can benefit from it. Afterall, if the terminally ill can be pumped full of morphine, or given a bottle of percodan or vicodin to take home, it seems marijuana, or at least an extract containing the active compounds, should be available by prescription too if it can alleviate some of the symptoms of debilitating illness. I don't think recreational use should be legalized. On the other hand, I also think that those who do abuse drugs shouldn't be treated as criminals, but instead provided access to treatment programs (save the criminal charges for those who illegally distribute the drugs and smuggle them into the country).
wasteofo2
Sep26-04, 01:33 AM
I've heard that it's actually easier for kids to get Marijuana than Alcohol, since Alcohol's ususally only made and sold legally to people with a permit, wheras Marijuana's sold to anyone who'll pay for it pretty much. Holland hasn't fallen into chaos since Marijuana's been legalized there, and they have ridiculously low rates of hard drug usage too, must be something magically calming about the Marijuana...
Maybe I did not consume much, but I never missed weed one single second. When I decided to quit cigarettes, it was another business. I did not really miss it, but I have been nervous for several days.
I really think I had a small consumption, and I did notice a difference, without rationnaly asking myself "is it different now ?", no, the difference was forced to my eyes.
weed doesn't have any physically addictive properties too it- so I always laugh when I hear people say "but I NEEED it". Yes you can stop any time with no side affects. So then why are there so many regular users? Addictive personality. For those people, if it wasn't weed it would be ciggarrettes(and frequently is in addition) or alcohol. For yougner people, weed is seen as a gateway drug to harder substances. Some people use it infrenquently and have no short term side affects. But you can smoke ciggarrettes for 20 years and suffer no side affects(or at least no major ones) Of course when cancer comes calling are we surprised? nope.
I don't don't mean to lecture(ok ya I do) but hey, if a substance only gives you temporary escape, but then causes long term health affects that are much worse than whatever you're trying to esacape from, is it worth it? Maybe that's an american mentality: buy now, pay later....*shrug*
I'll just add on that I have many friends who use it, and I don't lecture them, or tell them how to live thier lives, but they know the consequences of thier actions just like a smoker does
KaneOris
Sep26-04, 05:18 AM
Anyone who has smoked weed, and says that it doesnt affect them at all, apart from the desired effects, is either lying, or they dont know where its effecting them, id advise you to a get a sperm count!
JasonRox
Sep26-04, 10:34 AM
I thought lowering the sperm count was a good thing.
Dimitri Terryn
Sep26-04, 12:34 PM
I thought lowering the sperm count was a good thing.
For some people, yes :wink:
Loren Booda
Sep26-04, 01:31 PM
THC is similar in form to some female hormones - thus less aggression, male breasts and lowered sperm count?
Adrian Baker
Sep26-04, 04:46 PM
Loads of comments here about possible harm/dangers/need etc but what about FREEDOM? What right does a Govt have to decide what substances a citizen can put in his/her body? Who owns my body - me or the Govt?
If I smoke pot and mess myself up, so what? It won't affect you or anyone else. Do we really need a nanny state dictating what we do? What right do the Govt have to interfere in such a basic human need as getting high now and again?
If I really need protecting from myself then perhaps we should also ban tobacco, alcohol, motorcycles, mountain climbing, polar exploration, hand gliding, racing, etc...
And if the Govt is SO concerned with citizens health, how come they have an army who can be sent to parts of the world where people want to kill them?
Pah!
Loads of comments here about possible harm/dangers/need etc but what about FREEDOM? What right does a Govt have to decide what substances a citizen can put in his/her body? Who owns my body - me or the Govt?
If I smoke pot and mess myself up, so what? It won't affect you or anyone else. Do we really need a nanny state dictating what we do? What right do the Govt have to interfere in such a basic human need as getting high now and again?
If I really need protecting from myself then perhaps we should also ban tobacco, alcohol, motorcycles, mountain climbing, polar exploration, hand gliding, racing, etc...
And if the Govt is SO concerned with citizens health, how come they have an army who can be sent to parts of the world where people want to kill them?
Pah!
it's not about freedom, it's about legalizing a substance that would endanger big business that support the government (lumber, cotton, and oil)
humanino
Sep26-04, 11:08 PM
but they know the consequences of thier actions just like a smoker does
Are you certain they realize the effects on the concentration and memorization capabilities ? I was not aware of the extent of those. Only experimentating it can make you realize. But then you need to quit. And then you realize how stupid it was.
I keep getting drunk once in a while. I can have one or two puffs from time to time whenever I have the occasion, and those give me a real funny effect I can appreciate, whereas it required more back when I smoked it several times a week.
Moonbear
Sep27-04, 09:00 PM
While I was driving home today, and thinking about PF as I always do, :tongue2: it occurred to me there is another reason for the government to stop people from doing things to harm themselves...the rising cost of health insurance! The more insurance companies have to pay for the stupid things people do to themselves, the more we all pay in premiums. Alternatively, if these people don't have insurance or if insurance carriers just refused to cover "self-inflicted" injury, then it's likely the hospitals will be the ones to get stiffed, so then we pay the added expense in rising cost of hospital stays or doctor visits. In the end, we all wind up paying for their stupidity.
JasonRox
Sep27-04, 09:09 PM
While I was driving home today, and thinking about PF as I always do, :tongue2: it occurred to me there is another reason for the government to stop people from doing things to harm themselves...the rising cost of health insurance! The more insurance companies have to pay for the stupid things people do to themselves, the more we all pay in premiums. Alternatively, if these people don't have insurance or if insurance carriers just refused to cover "self-inflicted" injury, then it's likely the hospitals will be the ones to get stiffed, so then we pay the added expense in rising cost of hospital stays or doctor visits. In the end, we all wind up paying for their stupidity.
Which leads me to believe that the average IQ is not 100, but more like 75ish. :bugeye:
wasteofo2
Sep27-04, 09:14 PM
If I smoke pot and mess myself up, so what? It won't affect you or anyone else. Do we really need a nanny state dictating what we do? What right do the Govt have to interfere in such a basic human need as getting high now and again?
In a society where the government doesn't pay for your medical costs in any way, that'd be true, but in the USA, the govt pays for alot of your medical care, so every person who fuks up their own body is an expense to the govt, and every tax-paying citizen, who funds the government.
hypnagogue
Sep27-04, 09:38 PM
While I was driving home today, and thinking about PF as I always do, :tongue2: it occurred to me there is another reason for the government to stop people from doing things to harm themselves...the rising cost of health insurance! The more insurance companies have to pay for the stupid things people do to themselves, the more we all pay in premiums. Alternatively, if these people don't have insurance or if insurance carriers just refused to cover "self-inflicted" injury, then it's likely the hospitals will be the ones to get stiffed, so then we pay the added expense in rising cost of hospital stays or doctor visits. In the end, we all wind up paying for their stupidity.
I'm not going to do the math, but it seems as if the government could more than make up for such costs simply by placing high sales taxes on the harmful substances in question.
Moonbear
Sep27-04, 09:49 PM
I'm not going to do the math, but it seems as if the government could more than make up for such costs simply by placing high sales taxes on the harmful substances in question.
Hmmm...maybe. But I don't know for certain. Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol don't seem to cover the cost of treating illnesses related to using those. People won't even allow extra taxes on junk food that is legal and we know leads to health problems when consumed in excess. I guess there would be a fine line between how much you could tax it and when it becomes more profitable to sell it illegally without paying tax as to whether this would work. Then again, we might have an easier time catching the smugglers and dealers if the IRS was going after them instead of the DEA. :biggrin:
humanino
Sep27-04, 09:51 PM
I'm not going to do the math, but it seems as if the government could more than make up for such costs simply by placing high sales taxes on the harmful substances in question.
Yes, they can do the math, and that is why they might only tax it, as they do with alcohol. Besides, it keeps the people shouting the stupid argument "I'm free to spoil my life" have exactly what they deserve. :devil:
Yes, they can do the math, and that is why they might only tax it, as they do with alcohol. Besides, it keeps the people shouting the stupid argument "I'm free to spoil my life" have exactly what they deserve. :devil:
I think it would be wonderful if they would one day really try to legalise people's choises, and discover how this would solve all the monstrous problems they (the government, etc.) have created by this absurd prohibition.
(I think the present day situation could almost be called a kind of civil war)
While I was driving home today, and thinking about PF as I always do, :tongue2: it occurred to me there is another reason for the government to stop people from doing things to harm themselves...the rising cost of health insurance! The more insurance companies have to pay for the stupid things people do to themselves, the more we all pay in premiums. Alternatively, if these people don't have insurance or if insurance carriers just refused to cover "self-inflicted" injury, then it's likely the hospitals will be the ones to get stiffed, so then we pay the added expense in rising cost of hospital stays or doctor visits. In the end, we all wind up paying for their stupidity.
the rising costs are due to malpractice insurance and the amount of lawsuits americans file. i know an emergency room doctor who pays 100K annually for his malpractice insurance. also, you have the huge profits of the pharmaceutical companies that the insurance premiums have to cover. and don't forget the mounting problem of the uninsured who are treated regardless and then never pay the bill-guess who gets stuck with those costs down the road? those paying the insurance premiums...
those smoking marijuana are a lot less likely to injure themselves then someone who is intoxicated from alcohol. if anything, someone high has the tendency to do nothing but think. anyone hurting themselves from that is in rare form.
Funny, when I was younger everyone smoked marijuana and I could always tell when someone had been smoking because their ability to pay attention was so impaired. We nicknamed one guy that smoked all the time "snap" because he had no snap (attention span).
People that smoke don't realize how their coordination, reflexes and response time are all diminished when they smoke. They think they are reacting normally. :rofl:
I've smoked and I personally don't like the feeling, I prefer to be alert.
I don't consider it any more harmful than alcohol, but it should be used like alcohol. If you drink during the day or while you are working or driving, you are considered to have a problem. Smoking marijuana is no different.
humanino
Sep28-04, 10:30 AM
If you drink during the day or while you are working or driving, you are considered to have a problem. Smoking marijuana is no different.
When in Amsterdam, you can encounter at 9am a bank officer guy well dressed and carrying an expansive suit case, probably full of several 0s numbers, yet smoking pot. :eek: :yuck:
I wish if this guys misplaces a zero, that is in advantage to the the customer :tongue2:
When in Amsterdam, you can encounter at 9am a bank officer guy well dressed and carrying an expansive suit case, probably full of several 0s numbers, yet smoking pot. :eek: :yuck:
I wish if this guys misplaces a zero, that is in advantage to the the customer :tongue2:Their accuracy might not be affected, it just takes them twice as long to figure it out.
Some people say it just makes them feel "mellow", well I'm looking at them and they may feel "mellow" but they appear to be "sloooow". I'm always asked "how can you tell I've been smoking?" Believe me, it's not hard. :wink:
Loren Booda
Sep28-04, 11:01 AM
I scored a perfect 800 on my Math SAT while stoned back when they were more difficult (1976), but I also did poorly on my Advanced Placement tests under the influence. I was an addict. SATs were rote tests, while APs (even math) required an essay.
humanino
Sep28-04, 11:10 AM
You know what : last year of high school in France, last trimester did not matter for my admission. I knew I would get in, I only needed to get my baccalaureat (which is did with honor). Anyway, I wanted to experiment that "under weed, your imagination is multiplied". So I wrote my three last philosophy dissertations stoned. I got three 17/20, and I think the teacher never gave beter. When I reread those today, not only is this great, I used words I don't even know and when I check them in the dictionnary, not only do they mean something really, they exactly mean what I wanted to express at this point. Yet there is a flaw. Those dissertations, I had to rewrite them after the weed effect was gone, because they were full of orthographical mistakes. Even though it liberates ones imagination, to me it illutrates the fact that ones attention is down.
Alcohol slows you down and impairs one just as much, if not even more so. More people die from the effects of alcohol or admitted to the hospital then by marijuana (drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, violence activated by drunkeness). I really don't think we can pass a harsher judgement on it when a LEGAL substance can and does far more damage. If it's legal, it should be regulated definitely as much as alcohol with age restrictions, taxes, and places to purchase. Also, there are many marijuana users arrested and clogging up the jail systems, and your tax dollars are paying for it. Do we continue down our path costing all this money for a "problem" that will most likely never go away? Or do we get smart, legalize it, make some money and utilize tax dollars for crimes that deserve more attention and money?
Loren & humanino, yes, I have also noticed it has no adverse affects on knowledge/intelligence. For me alcohol is the same. Some of my most brilliant presentations were done while I was intoxicated, although I wouldn't have been able to pass a field sobriety test. :biggrin:
Alcohol slows you down and impairs one just as much, if not even more so. More people die from the effects of alcohol or admitted to the hospital then by marijuana (drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, violence activated by drunkeness). I really don't think we can pass a harsher judgement on it when a LEGAL substance can and does far more damage. If it's legal, it should be regulated definitely as much as alcohol with age restrictions, taxes, and places to purchase. Also, there are many marijuana users arrested and clogging up the jail systems, and your tax dollars are paying for it. Do we continue down our path costing all this money for a "problem" that will most likely never go away? Or do we get smart, legalize it, make some money and utilize tax dollars for crimes that deserve more attention and money?I agree, it should be treated like alcohol.
Gokul43201
Sep28-04, 01:48 PM
Some of my most brilliant presentations were done while I was intoxicated, although I wouldn't have been able to pass a field sobriety test. :biggrin:
Wooohoooo :surprised ....who'd have thunk !! :biggrin:
'Evo the Wise', the mentor formerly known as Wild Thing ! :wink:
humanino
Sep28-04, 02:08 PM
Does that mean a mentor position is now available ? :tongue2:
Well, not for me in that case. :frown:
the real effects of the pot are way less
then the real effects of the laws against it
btw stupid laws against pot have not had any real effect
on limitimg its use by kids
with stupid laws like 3 strikes
people are doing life for pot
just laws are needed to promote respect for justice
decriminalization is the ONLY rational option
and very far over due
drug tests are a violation of rights
esp in pot cases as there is no relationship to imparement
as no known test will tell if someone is high
just that they smoked sometime in the past month or more
I dont think marijuana is necessarily bad for you if you do it once in a while. I smoke marijuana almost once every couple of days, and it doesent really effect me at all. I have grades in the 80% range, and will be going to university next year for engineering, i also have a <A TITLE="Click for more information about job" STYLE="text-decoration: none; border-bottom: medium solid green;" HREF="http://search.targetwords.com/u.search?x=5977|1||||job|AA1VDw">job</A>, and it doesent effect me there either. It really lets me relax, clear my mind up, ease the tension, you know....just letting go of reality for an hour and zooming off elsewhere, the high is just temporary, and your back to your normal self in an hour or 2, this is one of the main reasons why so many people choose cannibus over other drugs, its cheap, safe, effective, and the best part, its not even very addictive!
You prove once more how self centered and "blip blip blip" (I am censoring myself) marijuana users are.
Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.
We keep reading stories around here about farmers who live in fear because of drug traffickers using their properties to grow drugs. But marijuana users are so ******* self centered that they don't give a damn about where their money goes. They just think about themselves.
It's hard to imagine someone who is more of an ******* than a recreational marijuana user who puts money in the pockets of organized criminals.
When confronted with this, they are too hypocrites to admit how selfish they are. They change the subject by saying "but that's why we should decriminalize".
If marijuana users were the least honest (I know, I can keep dreaming!). they would say "yes, I give money to criminals because I enjoy it. And, by the way, we should decriminalize because I think I deserve to be rewarded for doing what I do". But they are way too hypocrites to admit that.
Pat
You prove once more how self centered and "blip blip blip" (I am censoring myself) marijuana users are.
Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.
We keep reading stories around here about farmers who live in fear because of drug traffickers using their properties to grow drugs. But marijuana users are so ******* self centered that they don't give a damn about where their money goes. They just think about themselves.
It's hard to imagine someone who is more of an ******* than a recreational marijuana user who puts money in the pockets of organized criminals.
When confronted with this, they are too hypocrites to admit how selfish they are. They change the subject by saying "but that's why we should decriminalize".
If marijuana users were the least honest (I know, I can keep dreaming!). they would say "yes, I give money to criminals because I enjoy it. And, by the way, we should decriminalize because I think I deserve to be rewarded for doing what I do". But they are way too hypocrites to admit that.
Pat
marijuana users wouldn't be giving money to criminals if it was legal and regulated either. i have known many people who use alcohol that were also dishonest, selfish and self centered.
You know as a smoker (of ciggarrettes) I've had to explain my habit a billion times, especially living in California. But you know what? I don't make excuses. I don't dodge the facts or truth of what I'm doing, or the dangers I'm risking by smoking. I'm aware of it and I proceed in spite of it. But I don't dodge, lie, or pretend ciggarrettes are something they aren't, which a lot of smokers do. And pot smokers. My view on it is if you do, cool- peace and love and all that jazz, but don't try and sell me on it like I'm a congressman trying to pass anti-drug legislation. It is what it is, and the facts aren't really in dispute. So just shut up, fess up, do it, and move on. Otherwise you end up sounding like a crackhead trying to explain why they "need" their next fix.
Personally, I wouldn't smoke it even if it was legal.
Gokul43201
Sep28-04, 07:17 PM
Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.
And the common folk who don't switch off lights at home every possible chance, and drive instead of walking, cycling or riding a bus, are people who don't care if they are making the big, energy executives rich, because they care only about themselves.
You prove once more how self centered and "blip blip blip" (I am censoring myself) marijuana users are.
Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.
What is bad about that? If you buy something from someone you make the seller a little richer. That is the way trading works...
We keep reading stories around here about farmers who live in fear because of drug traffickers using their properties to grow drugs. But marijuana users are so ******* self centered that they don't give a damn about where their money goes. They just think about themselves.
Who do you think the farmers are affraid of? They are affraid of drug squads, policemen! They are not affraid of drug users, often the farmers could not even live decently if they did not grow it.
(By the way those farmers are not often growing marihuana, but more often coca)
It's hard to imagine someone who is more of an ******* than a recreational marijuana user who puts money in the pockets of organized criminals.
When confronted with this, they are too hypocrites to admit how selfish they are. They change the subject by saying "but that's why we should decriminalize".
That is not changing the subject, that is pointing out what the problem is. The problem is that some people want to use marihuana and that others say "No, you are not allowed to!". Prohibition causes all the problems.
If marijuana users were the least honest (I know, I can keep dreaming!). they would say "yes, I give money to criminals because I enjoy it. And, by the way, we should decriminalize because I think I deserve to be rewarded for doing what I do". But they are way too hypocrites to admit that.
Pat
They just want to use marihuana, they do not want to give anyone money and it should be decriminalized because it is ridiculous to deny people the use of some plant.
And the common folk who don't switch off lights at home every possible chance, and drive instead of walking, cycling or riding a bus, are people who don't care if they are making the big, energy executives rich, because they care only about themselves.
See that's just it. The issue isn't about who makes the money, it's about the kids using drugs before they are old enough or mature enough to make an informed decision. Or using it solely due to peer pressure. Sure if you're 30 years old and a pothead, more power to you, but if you're 15? how about 12? 9? What age is too young? Any substance that alters your sense of reality is affecting your brain in some way, no matter how much potheads try and deny it. And if you're smoking pot at 10, by 15 you'll be using mescaline, pcp, heroin or crack. And you can't say "oh they know better" because if the kid doesn't have the brains to say no to pot, then he's only one step away from snorting stuff because he doesn't want his friends to think he's "a tard" or "lame"
question to all you smokers: one day you'll have kids- you going to let them smoke pot? if not, are you going to hide your use from them? If so, why? I guess I just see things a little differently since I'm a parent.
They just want to use marihuana, they do not want to give anyone money and it should be decriminalized because it is ridiculous to deny people the use of some plant.
Some people might say it's ridiculous to have to risk at the very minimum, lung cancer, mood swings, low sperm count,jail time,job loss, and spend enough money to make ciggarrettes look like a cheap habit- just to TEMPORARILY solve your woes or for kicks Not to mention the fact that like any substance, the more you use it, the less potent to your body it beconmes, as it adapts, so you have to spend even MORE money just to get the same benefit (and I know this as I know some people who spend gobs of money to get very expensive, very potent stuff just to feel normal, because dirt weed won't cut it anymore)..But that's just some people I guess....
decibel
Sep28-04, 09:43 PM
Any substance that alters your sense of reality is affecting your brain in some way, no matter how much potheads try and deny it. And if you're smoking pot at 10, by 15 you'll be using mescaline, pcp, heroin or crack.
hmmm....That IS true, but only for some people, for me, no. I'v been smoking it for 5 years, and the only "drug" i'v ever tried and will try is marijuana, nothing else, never. I would NEVER EVER do anything like heroid or crack, thats just not cool.
hypnagogue
Sep28-04, 09:53 PM
Sure if you're 30 years old and a pothead, more power to you, but if you're 15? how about 12? 9? What age is too young?
Sounds like a great reason to legalize marijuana, so its distribution can be regulated and restricted to adults only.
And you can't say "oh they know better" because if the kid doesn't have the brains to say no to pot
Choosing to smoke marijuana is not a matter of not having brains-- when's the last time you chided someone who went to a bar for not having brains? Alcohol is potentially physiologically addictive, after all, while I don't believe marijuana has ever been shown to be anything more than psychologically addictive.
In fact, if there's any drug habit you could say requires a complete failure of rational brain operation, it would have to be smoking cigarettes, not smoking marijuana or even drinking alcohol. (Don't take offense, I'm hooked on 'em too.) At least with marijuana you get some interesting benefits to go with the costs. In general, I think the only drugs that should be strongly discouraged are the physiologically addictive, highly destructive kind-- heroin, cocaine, and yes, tobacco. On the other hand, a lot of people might benefit from exploring the subjective spaces opened up by limited use of non-addictive drugs, such as marijuana or even (gasp) mescalin.
I can't speak for 10 year olds, but I know more than a few people who were apparently brain-deficient enough to try marijuana at around 14 or 15. I don't know anyone who ever even considered doing something like heroin or crack. Contrary to sensationalist caricatures, even young teenagers tend to have some sense of what they can get away with trying and what is best to avoid like the plague.
In a society where the government doesn't pay for your medical costs in any way, that'd be true, but in the USA, the govt pays for alot of your medical care, so every person who fuks up their own body is an expense to the govt, and every tax-paying citizen, who funds the government.
Or even worse, in a country with Socialized Medicare, like Canada.
but I hear this same arguemnt daily about Tobaco and Alcohol. I think there need to be restrictions that say they won't pay for self-inflicted illnesses.
Or even worse, in a country with Socialized Medicare, like Canada.
but I hear this same arguemnt daily about Tobaco and Alcohol. I think there need to be restrictions that say they won't pay for self-inflicted illnesses.
I’m going to have to strongly disagree with this, Smurf. For example: If someone develops lung cancer, the gov’t could claim that it’s because they smoke and thus, not pay for treatment. Although smoking does significantly increase the risk of lung cancer, it might not have been the cause in all instances even if the person who has developed lung cancer is a smoker.
The better alternative is to charge taxes on things like tobacco products and (unfortunately) alcohol that would cover the cost of treating diseases linked to the use and abuse of these substances. Though this would, in effect, ‘punish’ people who don’t develop any illnesses from the use of these substances, it doesn’t prevent people from receiving treatment.
Now, I know that there are already huge taxes on cigarettes. They’re at almost $8/pack I think in Ontario… however, I’m pretty sure income from these taxes doesn’t all go into the healthcare system (or anti-smoking campaigns). There needs to be a reform of how that revenue is spent.
I have to side with Zantra here.
Make two columns. One with the positives of smoking marijuana and one with the negatives.
Which column has more entries?
Gokul43201
Sep28-04, 11:38 PM
Make two columns. One with the positives of smoking marijuana and one with the negatives.
Which column has more entries?
Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.
hypnagogue
Sep28-04, 11:40 PM
Make two columns. One with the positives of smoking marijuana and one with the negatives.
Which column has more entries?
For sustained / long term / heavy marijuana use, the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. For infrequent / moderate / responsible use, depending on the mentality of the user, it is likely that that the benefits outweigh the costs.
decibel
Sep28-04, 11:44 PM
Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.
good point although i think the marijuana column would be more of even on both sides considering that it is used for medicinal purposes, and there hasent been one case ever documented of someone dying of marijuana.
For sustained, long term marijuana use, the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. For infrequent use, depending on the mentality of the user, it is likely that that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Does this mean that if I'm not smoking weed now, I should start? :tongue2:
I’m going to have to strongly disagree with this, Smurf. For example: If someone develops lung cancer, the gov’t could claim that it’s because they smoke and thus, not pay for treatment. Although smoking does significantly increase the risk of lung cancer, it might not have been the cause in all instances even if the person who has developed lung cancer is a smoker.
The better alternative is to charge taxes on things like tobacco products and (unfortunately) alcohol that would cover the cost of treating diseases linked to the use and abuse of these substances. Though this would, in effect, ‘punish’ people who don’t develop any illnesses from the use of these substances, it doesn’t prevent people from receiving treatment.
Now, I know that there are already huge taxes on cigarettes. They’re at almost $8/pack I think in Ontario… however, I’m pretty sure income from these taxes doesn’t all go into the healthcare system (or anti-smoking campaigns). There needs to be a reform of how that revenue is spent.
your right thats a much better idea. make it 10$ a pack
Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.
....watching porn? are there any proven negative effects for that?
Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.Very good, except watching porn may vary greatly depending on the psychological makeup of the individual.
Where it may satisfy the needs of one, it may only fuel the desire of another.
hypnagogue
Sep29-04, 12:27 AM
Does this mean that if I'm not smoking weed now, I should start? :tongue2:
I don't see any reason why a responsible, well-informed adult without an addictive personality shouldn't try it (presuming that adult has the opportunity to take it legally). If used responsibly, there are no significant long term effects, and there are no physiologically addictive properties to make such responsible use unrealistic.
Thus, it is possible for the right kind of person in the right kind of situation to keep the negative effects to a negligible level, while simultaneously experiencing a potentially deeply rewarding exploration into what consciousness can be. Sometimes it's pleasant, or intellectually stimulating, or emotionally helpful, or even spiritually enlightening, to view the world through qualitatively different kinds of glasses.
As long as utmost care is taken in such pursuits, I see no reason why such activities should not just be allowed but actually enthusiastically endorsed. It's just like any other potentially dangerous but potentially rewarding activities: do it safely and reap the benefits. We let people experience the rush of jumping out of a plane, but only after extensive training and preparation, under proper supervision, etc. Why couldn't the same be done with the suitable kinds of psychoactive drugs? Personally, I think it's a shame that so many people go through life never experiencing anything outside of waking, dreaming, and perhaps drunkenness. There are many other wonderful fruits hiding in the untapped branches of the mind, if only we could learn and teach how to scale the heights safely rather than fear and forbid them.
Gokul43201
Sep29-04, 01:24 AM
Very good, except watching porn may vary greatly depending on the psychological makeup of the individual.
Where it may satisfy the needs of one, it may only fuel the desire of another.
Agreed. I was merely trying to raise the point that while the goods and bads are "fairly" agreed upon, this thread is about the benefits/drawbacks of legalizing pot.
Ivan Seeking
Sep29-04, 02:35 AM
As an aside; three pot parties.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45244
Some people might say it's ridiculous to have to risk at the very minimum, lung cancer, mood swings, low sperm count,jail time,job loss, and spend enough money to make ciggarrettes look like a cheap habit- just to TEMPORARILY solve your woes or for kicks Not to mention the fact that like any substance, the more you use it, the less potent to your body it beconmes, as it adapts, so you have to spend even MORE money just to get the same benefit (and I know this as I know some people who spend gobs of money to get very expensive, very potent stuff just to feel normal, because dirt weed won't cut it anymore)..But that's just some people I guess....
That may seem ridiculous to some. But that is no valid reason to prohibit it. This prohibition leads I think to far worse situations (as a very minor example would you like your children to be send to jail and get a criminal record because they smoked a joint). It would be better to just allow it and to inform people of all the dangerous consequences, which are now very unclear, mainly because of totally unbelievable propaganda.
Sounds like a great reason to legalize marijuana, so its distribution can be regulated and restricted to adults only.
Choosing to smoke marijuana is not a matter of not having brains-- when's the last time you chided someone who went to a bar for not having brains? Alcohol is potentially physiologically addictive, after all, while I don't believe marijuana has ever been shown to be anything more than psychologically addictive.
In fact, if there's any drug habit you could say requires a complete failure of rational brain operation, it would have to be smoking cigarettes, not smoking marijuana or even drinking alcohol. (Don't take offense, I'm hooked on 'em too.) At least with marijuana you get some interesting benefits to go with the costs. In general, I think the only drugs that should be strongly discouraged are the physiologically addictive, highly destructive kind-- heroin, cocaine, and yes, tobacco. On the other hand, a lot of people might benefit from exploring the subjective spaces opened up by limited use of non-addictive drugs, such as marijuana or even (gasp) mescalin.
I can't speak for 10 year olds, but I know more than a few people who were apparently brain-deficient enough to try marijuana at around 14 or 15. I don't know anyone who ever even considered doing something like heroin or crack. Contrary to sensationalist caricatures, even young teenagers tend to have some sense of what they can get away with trying and what is best to avoid like the plague.
no offense taken- I've heard far worse-I'm actually I'm my 3rd week of quitting ciggs(again) But I always tell people that they shouldn't smoke. My point was that a child uses weed a lot of times initially for peer acceptance, but then they get "hooked' psychologically, and continue to use it. My view may seem extremist to you, but it's been scientifically proven through many studies that weed is a gateway drug. So someone who's prone to addiction will continually use progressively stronger and more addictive substances.
As far as legalizing it, that wouldn't make it any better. It would make it more accessible, if anything. With risk of reprecussions reduced, you'd see kids hanging outside of 7-11's asking people to buy a dime bag for them instead of a case of beer. And for every case of someone who knew when to stop, I can give ou 10 who didn't.
I have this friend who I've known since we were kids. He's always been a pretty smart guy. We used to play chess and he'd beat the pants off me every time. Well he's been a regular user for probably the last 8 or 9 years. Recently we sat down to a game of chess for the first time in a long time after a few beers (2 wild and crazy guys huh?). Well I beat the pants off of him. It wasn't even close..And he's the kind who hates to loose, so I know he was trying. Weed does affect the brain people.
Thus, it is possible for the right kind of person in the right kind of situation to keep the negative effects to a negligible level, while simultaneously experiencing a potentially deeply rewarding exploration into what consciousness can be. Sometimes it's pleasant, or intellectually stimulating, or emotionally helpful, or even spiritually enlightening, to view the world through qualitatively different kinds of glasses.
If there was a drug that only killed some people with some of the wrong qualities some of the time under the right conditions, should it be sold by drug companies? I'm guessing the families of the people it DID kill would mind. Cocaine at one time was sold as a presciption drug for certain ailments. That doesn't mean it was intended for mass consumption. X is perfectly safe if you use it infrequently, not mixing it with alcohol or other drugs. And if used safely by adults under the right conditions can be safely ingested- should we legalize that too? My point is the line has to be drawn somewhere. Pot users want to draw the line on one side of weed, non users draw it on the other. So that infers that weed smokers are trying to justify thier use.
Let's look at what weed does exactly- it slows down motor response, impairs higher brain function and logical deduction. It doesn't have the same affect on your brain as alcohol exactly, but it's similiar. I'm not a chemist ,so I don't know exactly what area of the brain it surpresses (maybe someone more knowledgable about chemistry can add that in) but prolonged use of it dulls the synapses, slows higher brain function over a period of time, and affects short term memory retention. And this is a healthy drug to use? Personally I'd like to go out of this world with as many wits as I came into it with.
I'd also like to add that in the short term it may not have immediate affects, but long term frequent use does affect the brain. So if you're using it regularly you may not see any affects for the first few years, but eventually it catches up with you like anyhting else.
For sustained / long term / heavy marijuana use, the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. For infrequent / moderate / responsible use, depending on the mentality of the user, it is likely that that the benefits outweigh the costs.
thank you hypnogogue...for some reason, people have this perception that those who use it are smoking it like cigarettes. those who are responsible users (which is most of the users) will dabble with it like those who consume alcohol socially.
Loren Booda
Sep29-04, 12:59 PM
How does one know they have an addictive disorder before they become an addict?
thank you hypnogogue...for some reason, people have this perception that those who use it are smoking it like cigarettes. those who are responsible users (which is most of the users) will dabble with it like those who consume alcohol socially.
Pot has a culure associated with it as well. In my part of the world, people who smoke often smoke socially and peer pressure can be great to smoke it when every person you know says hey come on its the good stuff when you go over to their house. This can mak it hard to stop. I assume this happens with beer as well. Conversely, friendships can become strained when people start showing up to ones house just to smoke your weed. One can find out whose true friends are when one stops smoking weed. Weed also can be amotivational as one often becomes satisfied with life when one has smoked it, regardless of ones social situation. Instead of saying, I need to work and save up to become financially independent and get a better job, one can merely say I need some more pot. Pot needs a better culture associated with it, not often developed by the misanthropes of society, in order to be used safely. It can be a complex way of life as it has so many facets associated with it and popular culture often says more always better. As to it being a gateway drug, it might not be so much so if it were legal. People would no longer have the excuse that "pot is good and the government wont let me use it so other illegal drugs might be just as good or better because the government might be wrong on them as well." One of the worst things about pot is that it can be a gateway to other illegal practices more than just a potential gateway to harder drugs.
Adrian Baker
Sep29-04, 06:04 PM
For those who think it should be illegal (wether it is good, bad or indifferent for you!) have a look at how Prohibition in the US worked out. Was this abandoned due to a realisation of how good alcohol was for the public? I think not.
It is immaterial whether it is good or bad for the person involved - humans have free will and can make bad choices as well as good ones. What right does the state have to stop a person putting a chemical in their bodies if they wish to?
I race motorcycles. What health benefit is there in that? None! Should it be made illegal as well then? And mountaneering too, and boxing, and riding horses....
What happened to land of the free?
For those who think it should be illegal (wether it is good, bad or indifferent for you!) have a look at how Prohibition in the US worked out. Was this abandoned due to a realisation of how good alcohol was for the public? I think not.
It is immaterial whether it is good or bad for the person involved - humans have free will and can make bad choices as well as good ones. What right does the state have to stop a person putting a chemical in their bodies if they wish to?
I race motorcycles. What health benefit is there in that? None! Should it be made illegal as well then? And mountaneering too, and boxing, and riding horses....
What happened to land of the free?
Then I guess we should legalize cocaine, crack, methamphetmines, MDM, and heroin right away- then people can choose thier own fate.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
Moonbear
Sep29-04, 07:16 PM
There are a number of fairly recent studies showing the neural effects of THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana. Many of these focus on the hippocampus and nucleus accumbens. The hippocampus is involved in learning and memory, and nucleus accumbens is part of the limbic system, regulating "hedonistic" behaviors (i.e., sex and drug addiction).
There are effects on synaptic plasticity, or rearrangement of synaptic contacts between cells (measured as long-term potentiation and long-term depression), as reported in these two articles (the first one is available free online, the rest are all available online if you have access via subscription, such as through your library, so I didn't include links because my links won't work for you).
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Aug 18;95(17):10269-73.
Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after cannabinoid withdrawal.
Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, Gessa GL.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9707636
J Neurosci. 2003 Jun 15;23(12):4815-20.
Functional tolerance and blockade of long-term depression at synapses in the nucleus accumbens after chronic cannabinoid exposure.
Hoffman AF, Oz M, Caulder T, Lupica CR.
These data demonstrate that long-term exposure to the active ingredient of marijuana blocks synaptic plasticity in the NAc and reduces the sensitivity of GABAergic and glutamatergic synapses to both cannabinoids and opioids.
A paper about to come out (the manuscript is already published online) demonstrates negative effects of smoking marijuana on memory. This focuses on memory while using marijuana, not long-term effects after stopping or after chronic usage.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004 May 7 [Epub ahead of print]
Effects of marijuana on neurophysiological signals of working and episodic memory.
Ilan AB, Smith ME, Gevins A.
Responses in the WM (working memory) task were slower and less accurate after smoking marijuana, accompanied by reduced alpha band EEG reactivity in response to increased task difficulty. In the EM (episodic memory) task, marijuana was associated with an increased tendency to erroneously identify distracter words as having been previously studied.
And two papers that came out in 2001 both show cross-sensitization by THC to other drugs of abuse including morphine, heroin and amphetamine. Sensitization to drugs is an enhancement of the response to the drug that occurs with episodic rather than regular usage (i.e., stronger effects if you only use on weekends instead of every day). Cross-sensitization is the phenomenon where a drug interacts with the same neural pathway as a different class of drugs such that episodic use of one drug leads to a greater effect the first time a different drug is used than if you had no previous drug exposure of any kind.
The article by Lamarque et al. reported that this effect only occurred in "high responder" rats, ones that have been previously shown to be more vulnerable to drug-taking behaviors and are selected based on higher activity levels in a novel environment than the "low responder" rats. So, they posit the hypothesis that marijuana's role as a gateway drug may occur in similarly vulnerable humans. This still leaves unanswered just what makes some individuals more vulnerable than others in order to know who should never try it even once and who could safely try it without becoming quickly addicted or cross-sensitized to other drugs of abuse. The cross-sensitization to heroin was fairly long-lasting (still present 41 days after the last injection of THC, which was the last day of testing in this study).
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2001 Nov;158(3):259-66.
Behavioural sensitization after repeated exposure to Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cross-sensitization with morphine.
Cadoni C, Pisanu A, Solinas M, Acquas E, Di Chiara G.
Neuropharmacology. 2001 Jul;41(1):118-29.
Chronic treatment with Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances the locomotor response to amphetamine and heroin. Implications for vulnerability to drug addiction.
Lamarque S, Taghzouti K, Simon H.
Then I guess we should legalize cocaine, crack, methamphetmines, MDM, and heroin right away- then people can choose thier own fate.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
Yes, we should legalize all those substances. There is no need to draw a line. People can also get high on sniffing glue, but since they know that this is very bad for their health hardly anybody does this. People can make informed choices as long as they have the information, but in the US even research on such substances is mostly forbidden.
Yes, we should legalize all those substances. There is no need to draw a line. People can also get high on sniffing glue, but since they know that this is very bad for their health hardly anybody does this. People can make informed choices as long as they have the information, but in the US even research on such substances is mostly forbidden.
cocaine and heroine are highly physicially addictive to the point that violent crimes are often committed because of them. this is rarely the case with marijuana because it is not physically addictive. someone mentioned about health care issues using these kind of drugs? with cocaine and heroine being easily available, the health of many could be severely and immediately affected.
Moonbear
Sep29-04, 08:44 PM
Yes, we should legalize all those substances. There is no need to draw a line. People can also get high on sniffing glue, but since they know that this is very bad for their health hardly anybody does this. People can make informed choices as long as they have the information, but in the US even research on such substances is mostly forbidden.
Where do you get the idea such research is forbidden? I work with a number of people who study drug addiction and neural actions of these drugs. Such research is tightly controlled by the DEA (you need a special license), to make sure people purchasing these drugs for research are keeping it secured so it doesn't get misused, but it is allowed.
cocaine and heroine are highly physicially addictive to the point that violent crimes are often committed because of them. this is rarely the case with marijuana because it is not physically addictive. someone mentioned about health care issues using these kind of drugs? with cocaine and heroine being easily available, the health of many could be severely and immediately affected.
I agree the health of people can be serverly affected by the use of cocaine and heroine, in fact the health of many is severely affected by it. The fact that it is illegal makes matters only worse, I do not think that making it legal will cause more problems than there allready are with these drugs and with the crime associated with it because of pohibition.
Moonbear
Sep29-04, 08:51 PM
cocaine and heroine are highly physicially addictive to the point that violent crimes are often committed because of them. this is rarely the case with marijuana because it is not physically addictive. someone mentioned about health care issues using these kind of drugs? with cocaine and heroine being easily available, the health of many could be severely and immediately affected.
Kerrie, the most recent research is indicating THC is addictive. The addiction may not form as quickly as with other drugs of abuse (some of which can get someone hooked on just the first or second use), but that doesn't mean it isn't addictive. It seems to be more like alcohol in that regard, where some people are very susceptible to addiction and others can use it now and then throughout their entire lives without developing an addiction.
Where do you get the idea such research is forbidden? I work with a number of people who study drug addiction and neural actions of these drugs. Such research is tightly controlled by the DEA (you need a special license), to make sure people purchasing these drugs for research are keeping it secured so it doesn't get misused, but it is allowed.
Oh good, it is allowed then. I got the information from various stories and articles. There was some government funded research that was extremely fraud. Does the DEA also check the results of the research? I am still hesitant to trust such DEA-controlled research...
Moonbear
Sep29-04, 10:39 PM
Oh good, it is allowed then. I got the information from various stories and articles. There was some government funded research that was extremely fraud. Does the DEA also check the results of the research? I am still hesitant to trust such DEA-controlled research...
No, DEA doesn't check the results or have any influence on the studies, just whether or not you'll get the license to buy the controlled substances, and where you can buy them from. The research is pretty much all NIH-funded work, so the scientific component is evaluated by other scientific experts in the field. Providing that funding information to DEA is usually enough for them to know it is legitimate work, along with getting verification you are legitimately employed by a university and don't have a criminal record. I know this because I'm named on one of those licenses (I think I may have signed away my first-born child with all the paperwork :tongue:). I don't do any work on drug abuse, but I collaborate with the PI on that license quite a bit, so we decided to make sure I'm covered on it just in case (and as a back-up contact if she's not around should we get inspected or have a problem). There's an entire institute at NIH...the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA)...that funds such work.
Kerrie, the most recent research is indicating THC is addictive. The addiction may not form as quickly as with other drugs of abuse (some of which can get someone hooked on just the first or second use), but that doesn't mean it isn't addictive. It seems to be more like alcohol in that regard, where some people are very susceptible to addiction and others can use it now and then throughout their entire lives without developing an addiction.
are you referring to the physical addiction where the body goes through pain in withdrawal mode, or the kind of mental addiction that "potheads" are associated with?
are you referring to the physical addiction where the body goes through pain in withdrawal mode, or the kind of mental addiction that "potheads" are associated with?
Does it really make a difference? Addiction is addiction- If you can't stop, the specifics are moot.
Yes, it does make a difference. Psychological addictions can be very easily stopped. I stopped weed cold turkey like 5 years ago, and I had no withdrawls at all (other than being bored out of my mind).
Good luck trying to get somebody to stop smoking cigarettes or stop shooting heroin.
I know lots of weed smokers who claim "they can quit any time they want" as theier health goes down the tubes, as they develop a smokers cough from long term use- I had one friend recently go to a lung specialist because he was coughing up black flecks all the time... doctor said he was fine, or so he claims.. a week later he was smoking up a storm.. yet he claims he can "quit anytime he wants to"- if you can quit any time, why is it so many don't ?
I think things should be in balance. First you should legalize it. Then after some time when you have brought down smoking, cause we all know it's affecting our lives in a negative way, we should banish all smoke things slowly. Or maybe making candy-smokes. I really liked that as a kid :biggrin:
This was probably a reaaally stupid post.
I'll go back to bed now.
And I'm not stoned either.
I know lots of weed smokers who claim "they can quit any time they want" as theier health goes down the tubes, as they develop a smokers cough from long term use- I had one friend recently go to a lung specialist because he was coughing up black flecks all the time... doctor said he was fine, or so he claims.. a week later he was smoking up a storm.. yet he claims he can "quit anytime he wants to"- if you can quit any time, why is it so many don't ?
I happen to have over heard a conversation about a week ago between 2 pot smokers. One line that sticks out went something like "I didn't think I'd crave it, but I do crave it" I don't smoke it myself....often.
YourLooks
Sep30-04, 07:09 AM
What is "quit" ? what is "promises" ? :(
Does it really make a difference? Addiction is addiction- If you can't stop, the specifics are moot.
it makes a difference when physically addictive drugs such as heroine/cocaine cause violent crimes and marijuana's "mental" addiction is not causing violent crimes that affect others around them. the addiction to marijuana isn't causing violent crimes, but is causing many to go to jail for possession thus clogging up our jails and costing YOU money. ask some police officers what their take is, and I guarantee you they will say that marijuana needs to be legalized simply because of how many people are needlessly getting arrested for it, taking their time away from more important duties the public needs them for.
yes, i agree addiction is addiction, but the mental addiction isn't a physical need that causes the body pain and anguish to the point that one will commit crimes to get their fix. alcohol and cigarrettes even have more of a physical addiction factor then marijuana. this topic is about legalization of the substance, not justification for using it.
Adrian Baker
Sep30-04, 04:24 PM
Then I guess we should legalize cocaine, crack, methamphetmines, MDM, and heroin right away- then people can choose thier own fate.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
Yes, of course it should all be legalised. Do you understand the meaning of FREEDOM?
In the UK all drugs are availiable pretty much everywhere at cheap prices - what difference does making them illegal make? All it does is pass all the profits to thugs and gangsters who fight territory wars over their 'rights' to sell the stuff. Remember Prohibition?
And what about quality control? Why should addicts be forced to buy gear laced with brickdust, talcum powder or whatever? If the Govt wants a role it should respect people's rights to do what they want to their bodies, but protect them from dodgy gear and protect the rest of the country from drug wars and the crime associated with junkies robbing and theiving to feed their habit.
Supply them with pure clean junk with sterile needles, and stop the criminality.
Live free!
jimmy p
Sep30-04, 05:08 PM
Adrian!!! You're back!! or I havent seen you. Either way, welcome back to my world.
In the UK all drugs are availiable pretty much everywhere at cheap prices - what difference does making them illegal make? All it does is pass all the profits to thugs and gangsters who fight territory wars over their 'rights' to sell the stuff. Remember Prohibition?
For those who don't understand what he's talking about: when alcohol became illegal in the US, the mafia's power grew tremendously.
I have a bigger problem with organized crime and government corruption than I do with druggies. Legalize it :smile:
Moonbear
Sep30-04, 07:30 PM
are you referring to the physical addiction where the body goes through pain in withdrawal mode, or the kind of mental addiction that "potheads" are associated with?
First, let's start with the definition of addiction as is used in the scientific literature:
And since I have been discussing addiction, the definition, as used in scientific literature, should be supplied as well:
Br J Addict. 1990 Nov;85(11):1403-8.
Addiction: definition and implications.
Goodman A.
Integration of addiction into the theory and practice of psychiatry has been hampered by the lack of a definition of addiction which is scientifically useful. A definition is proposed, with diagnostic criteria specified in a format similar to that of DSM-III-R. Essentially, addiction designates a process whereby a behavior, that can function both to produce pleasure and to provide escape from internal discomfort, is employed in a pattern characterized by (1) recurrent failure to control the behaviour (powerlessness) and (2) continuation of the behaviour despite significant negative consequences (unmanageability). Some practical and theoretical implications of this definition are then explored.
There is no scientific distinction between "physical" and "psychological" addiction, because it all requires physical changes to neural structures to become a true addiction. The first set of references I posted (previous post) also addresses cross-sensitization to other drugs of abuse, with a pretty strong cross-sensitization to heroin. This is definitely a physical change in neural functioning, and long-lasting. I don't know if this makes any difference to whether people think it should be legalized or not. There are some compelling arguments that wouldn't depend on whether it is harmful to the user or not. But, if knowing it is physically addicting makes a difference to some, they should be aware of this.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Aug;28(5):849-63.
Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996.
Kalant H.
Recent research has clarified a number of important questions concerning adverse effects of cannabis on health. A causal role of acute cannabis intoxication in motor vehicle and other accidents has now been shown by the presence of measurable levels of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the blood of injured drivers in the absence of alcohol or other drugs, by surveys of driving under the influence of cannabis, and by significantly higher accident culpability risk of drivers using cannabis. Chronic inflammatory and precancerous changes in the airways have been demonstrated in cannabis smokers, and the most recent case-control study shows an increased risk of airways cancer that is proportional to the amount of cannabis use. Several different studies indicate that the epidemiological link between cannabis use and schizophrenia probably represents a causal role of cannabis in precipitating the onset or relapse of schizophrenia. A weaker but significant link between cannabis and depression has been found in various cohort studies, but the nature of the link is not yet clear. A large body of evidence now demonstrates that cannabis dependence, both behavioral and physical, does occur in about 7-10% of regular users, and that early onset of use, and especially of weekly or daily use, is a strong predictor of future dependence. Cognitive impairments of various types are readily demonstrable during acute cannabis intoxication, but there is no suitable evidence yet available to permit a decision as to whether long-lasting or permanent functional losses can result from chronic heavy use in adults. However, a small but growing body of evidence indicates subtle but apparently permanent effects on memory, information processing, and executive functions, in the offspring of women who used cannabis during pregnancy. In total, the evidence indicates that regular heavy use of cannabis carries significant risks for the individual user and for the health care system.
Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Oct;20(8):2203-13.
Adenosine A receptors are involved in physical dependence and place conditioning induced by THC.
Soria G, Castane A, Berrendero F, Ledent C, Parmentier M, Maldonado R, Valverde O.
Therefore, this study shows, for the first time, a specific involvement of A(2A) receptors in the addictive-related properties of cannabinoids.
I also found this interesting study that shows there may be a link between nicotine and addiction to THC.
Br J Pharmacol. 2002 Jan;135(2):564-78.
Behavioural and biochemical evidence for interactions between Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and nicotine.
Valjent E, Mitchell JM, Besson MJ, Caboche J, Maldonado R.
The facilitation of THC-induced acute pharmacological and biochemical responses, tolerance and physical dependence by nicotine could play an important role in the development of addictive processes.
Philocrat
Sep30-04, 08:31 PM
Thanks for the idea on a new thread Goku!
I have to admit I haven't researched in depth, however in my opinion, I think that ANY drug that can cause brain damage as expressed somewhere on this page http://www.amenclinic.com/ac/default.asp shouldn't be legal. It is said to cause short term memory loss, and like a lot of other medical problems there is typically more than one treatment for each one. Therefore, I would rather not bring something that is potentially harmful into the hands of an MD, let along the mind of a sick person.
Most of the chemical substances that are needed to stabilise the human body and mind are absorbed from food and drinks intake naturally. But from the history of drug taking, it seems as if the the body needs more or stronger, or designer substances for various complex reasons. Without making a nightmare out of what in fact is already a very messy situation, it is now a fundamental requirement that the governing institutions comission HONESTand PROPER studies of these substances to discover (1) why people need them in the first place, even at the risk of being criminalised?, (2) what benefits do they have, if any? and (3) what dangers do these substances pose to the users in the wider world, if any?
NOTE: We need to study these substances now and find scientific means of controlling them without necessarily criminalising the whole world on a subject we as of now know very little about.
moonbear, thanks for the info, however, cannabis should be treated very much like alcohol...i don't think anyone is disputing that here. if one consumes a large amount of alcohol, sure health risks are taken too? same with cigarettes. 6 states have legalized marijuana in it's raw form for medicinal purposes too. it has some positive effects for the right purpose, enough for some of our states to legalize it for medicinal purposes!
addiction can happen with so many substances-sugar, caffeine, nicotine, porn, gambling...do we outlaw all of those because of what the studies have proven? the fact is, many jails are overcrowded because of it, and not because of violent crimes from usage, but because people will continue to use. even a portion of the police force would like to see it legalized and REGULATED (much like alcohol) because jail time is unnecessary except in the case of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.
also, did you happen to research other reasons why it is actually illegal? as i posted previously, it boils down to the threat of big businesses. next time you see an anti-marijuana ad, notice the stigma the advertising is sending you, and analyze how much you (i am meaning "you" in general) lap up their influences. their goal is to portray it as anyone who uses is a loser. this is not an objective way to send a message, and as supporters of science, we really need to weigh the pros and cons of legalizing it in a more logical way. canada has done a great job of easing the laws of marijuana.
bottom line, the war on this particular drug will never been won. do we keep spending money to fight it? or do we earn money by regulating it and taxing it?
here is an interesting website that has some statistics about marijuana addiction vs other substances-both legal and illegal...
Common questions about marijuana (http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html)
Moonbear
Sep30-04, 11:36 PM
Kerrie, you may be surprised to find out that I'm not against legalizing marijuana. I'm not exactly for it either. Cigarettes and alcohol are bad for us too, and addictive, but unfortunately, perhaps, their usage has already been made quite acceptable, even expected, in our society, so it's much harder to stop their usage now. I'm not too keen on giving more harmful substances a stamp of approval by making them legal too. On the other hand, making their use subject to criminal codes also has serious flaws. Organized crime (not necessarily mafia, as some associate with that term) flourishes as long as they remain illegal. The stigma attached to addiction also hinders people from seeking treatment. I think you hear more people nowadays admitting to alcoholism as it has been treated more and more as the disease it is rather than as a weakness or character flaw, which really is an improvement (we had no shortage of alcoholics before, but now many more are seeking and getting treatment). So, I guess I lean more in the direction of decriminalization. Somewhere between legal, where people may interpret that as a government stamp of approval that it's safe to use, and illegal, where you have drug wars and addicts being thrown in prison for nothing other than being an addict rather than being offered a treatment program.
There is also work on some THC agonists (synthetic compounds similar to THC) that have the same beneficial effects for treating chronic pain or suppressing appetite that some people seek, but without some of the harmful side-effects. Those seem to be in very early stages of research, so I don't know whether that will pan out in the long-run or not as a safer form for medicinal use. Of course, when it comes to pain management for people with terminal illnesses, I don't see what the difference is between prescription percodan, which is also highly addictive, or allowing prescription marijuana. If either works, do we really worry about addiction and long-term health effects in a terminally ill patient? Let them eat, drink and smoke anything they want if it makes them feel better. In those cases, considering it a controlled substance available by prescription only would be quite reasonable to me too (not that dispensing by prescription only stops these substances from being abused by people who don't need them).
decibel
Sep30-04, 11:38 PM
Addiction from marijuana is a joke compared to other drugs. Marijuana leaves you satisfied, not wanting more. I'v been smoking for a while (5 years), and today(oct1st) i'v decided to just stop it for a while, i believe i dont think i'll get any craving or problems of such sort, because i'v stopped for a couple of months before, and it was pretty easy. Anyway, i'll let you guys know if i get any "symptoms" of addiction.
Adrian Baker
Oct1-04, 01:45 PM
Adrian!!! You're back!! or I havent seen you. Either way, welcome back to my world.
Thank you... :smile: Nice to be back. It is race season in the summer (I race motorcycles) and I've been a bit busy....
Anyway, back to the discussion, blah, blah, blah, bloody Govt, blah, freedom, blah, blah etc... :grumpy:
Yes, of course it should all be legalised. Do you understand the meaning of FREEDOM?
In the UK all drugs are availiable pretty much everywhere at cheap prices - what difference does making them illegal make? All it does is pass all the profits to thugs and gangsters who fight territory wars over their 'rights' to sell the stuff. Remember Prohibition?
And what about quality control? Why should addicts be forced to buy gear laced with brickdust, talcum powder or whatever? If the Govt wants a role it should respect people's rights to do what they want to their bodies, but protect them from dodgy gear and protect the rest of the country from drug wars and the crime associated with junkies robbing and theiving to feed their habit.
Supply them with pure clean junk with sterile needles, and stop the criminality.
Live free!
You just made my point.. thanks
Some people have addictive personalities or children who don't know any better and they'll use cocaine just to try it. Or why not just remove all gun restrictions so kids can play with guns? Then we can just "assume" that they are smart enough not to shoot themselves. Please tell me at what point we say no. At what point do the social cost outweigh the limited restrictiveness on our freedoms? How many dead crack babies does it take for you to put down the pipe? I'm just curious..
My extreme point is that The only ones crying legalize are ther users and that isn't the majority, so it stays illegal. THis is in the same vein as the patriot act, only in the opposite direction. People, we have laws to protect us, not restrict us. If you deny the laws in the name of freedom, you just invite anarchy. When you get high and it affects someone else, it becomes a problem.
My extreme point is that The only ones crying legalize are ther users and that isn't the majority, so it stays illegal. THis is in the same vein as the patriot act, only in the opposite direction. People, we have laws to protect us, not restrict us. If you deny the laws in the name of freedom, you just invite anarchy. When you get high and it affects someone else, it becomes a problem.
how does it affect others when it is used responsibly? in order to be completely objective zantra, you have to address the issue of cigarrettes and alcohol affecting others and being legal. cigarettes and alcohol kill many people, should we make those illegal based on your point? it is not an objective argument.
Loren Booda
Oct1-04, 05:11 PM
Some seem to believe that addiction is a willful choice. I "wasted" many years of my life self-medicating with marijuana. Some 20% of pot smokers do just that - ineffectively treat an underlying mental illness. By then it may be more than a habit, much like a true addiction.
how does it affect others when it is used responsibly? in order to be completely objective zantra, you have to address the issue of cigarrettes and alcohol affecting others and being legal. cigarettes and alcohol kill many people, should we make those illegal based on your point? it is not an objective argument.
I made the extremist point because according to adrian we should legalize every drug and have zero drug laws. If you let the majority make thier own choice, most will choose short term gratification over long term side affects. And people who are high do stupid stuff. That affects other people. Any time someone's personal freedom affects or harms the public at large it shouldn't be allowed. That's why they've banned smoking in public places. The problem with MJ, just like anything else is that people don't use it responsibly, and cause injury to other people. This gives it a bad vibe.
The problem with MJ, just like anything else is that people don't use it responsibly, and cause injury to other people. This gives it a bad vibe.
please back this up with statistics and show the comparison with alcohol.
please back this up with statistics and show the comparison with alcohol.
I'll find the statistics, but just to clarify, you're saying that you don't believe that drugs like cocaine lsd and meth should be illegal because it restricts people's rights? I'm just making sure you want to allign yourself with Adrian's stance.
Here's a little teaser to get started. weed offers the same perils as regular ciggarrettes...
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0791.html
The long-term physiological and psychological effects of smoking pot are complicated. Further clouding this issue is the absence of a clear definition of "light," "moderate," and "heavy" use. Based on a range of research, however, a few joints a year can be considered light use, lighting up a few times a month constitutes moderate use, and daily hits or multiple uses per week spell heavy use. The duration of marijuana use over time may be the major player when it comes to unhealthy effects: long-term, heavy use of the drug may result in the illnesses and diseases associated with long-term cigarette smoking. Cigarettes have been linked to an increased incidence of heart disease and lung cancer (marijuana smoke contains the same cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco smoke -- actually four times as much tar); emphysema; gum disease; and cancers of the mouth, jaw, and tongue.
Additionally, short-term memory loss, reduced fertility in men and women, and personality changes may occur in some long-term pot smokers. The more immediate effects of moderate and heavy marijuana use are better known: congestion, sore throat, dry mouth, impaired thinking and motor skill ability (including reaction time essential for driving), fatigue, anxiety, dilated pupils, and more. Some research links a rare childhood leukemia with mothers who lit up while they were pregnant.
Storage-wise, about half of the marijuana metabolites -- the substances that result from pot's breakdown by the liver and kidneys -- pass through the body hours after the first hit. The rest of the metabolites are stored away, sometimes for weeks, in fatty tissue, where their effect is unknown. We do know that pot, by itself and not when it is combined with other unknown substances, is not physically addictive, nor does it appear to impair intelligence.
Is pot more dangerous than alcohol? On an individual level, it depends on many factors, including reasons for use (as part of a healthy celebration, or as an unhealthy coping crutch), family history of alcohol and other drug use (drugs are often more dangerous if one or both parents are/were abusers), and your comfort level in the environment and situation in which drug use occurs.
Let's go somewhere else with your pot query. Like cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, joints and bongs deliver second-hand smoke to nonusers around them -- through the air, under doors, and via air vents. And, a nonsmoker in a very smoky room theoretically can get high, too. Likewise, urine can test positive via a drug test for innocent bystanders within a day of breathing second-hand pot smoke. Weed and other drug use can also impact relationships with friends, roommates, parents, etc., in ways that you might not have predicted before you lit up.
P.S.:
Drug-Related Deaths in the United States
Every year in the United States, alcohol-related deaths total 100,000 and tobacco-related fatalities total 450,000. And, according to the Feds, all illicit drugs are linked to under 10,000 deaths per year. But, according to the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, "innocent" pot is increasingly laced with other drugs, like angel dust and heroin, sometimes unbeknownst to users. Obviously, mixing drugs can present big problems -- even to first-time users.
So pot smokers can line up for iron lungs right next to the smokers..
Ivan Seeking
Oct1-04, 08:23 PM
It is clear that drug laws don't work. They do cripple the justice system which makes it nearly impossible to keep the truly violent offenders in check. They also insure that children have access to dangerous drugs.
As mentioned earlier, drug laws actually result in the funding of organized crime.
Drug laws impose a huge burden on all aspects of society. When violent crime is considered - that is crime that results directly from the laws that make drugs valuable - the harm to society is far greater than the drug use alone.
Drug laws stand as a shield against those who might otherwise find help.
The government has no business [and has no means of] regulating personal behavior. Education is far more effective.
Whether or not pot is damaging makes no difference wrt legalization. Dangerous personal behavior is not only common it is popular. Extreme sports are certainly more dangerous than smoking pot. At least there is no doubt in my mind about what happens when your parachute doesn't open, or when you fall off of the side of a mountain, or when your bungee cord breaks.
I say legalize all drugs and offer free help to those who are willing. If they are not willing, so be it. We do not now nor can we ever save everyone from themselves.
I'll find the statistics, but just to clarify, you're saying that you don't believe that drugs like cocaine lsd and meth should be illegal because it restricts people's rights? I'm just making sure you want to allign yourself with Adrian's stance.
So pot smokers can line up for iron lungs right next to the smokers..
absolutely do not agree with adrian on the stance that all drugs should be legal Zantra...only marijuana because there are so many people who use...you would probably be surprised at how many use.
for your link, i take it to be as credible as the enquirer since it does not mention that smoking any plant is harmful to your lungs. also, those who smoke, don't do so in the same amount of those who smoke cigarettes on a regular basis.
my main point here is the decriminalization issue. the war on marijuana will never be won, why are we spending so much money on it when we can gain a whole lot more?
Adrian Baker
Oct2-04, 12:31 PM
Blimey, drugs can be harmful?? I didn't know that? People do silly things too? oh err!
Once again, FREEDOM. Who are you, I, the Govt, anyone, to dictate what a person does to their body if it harms no one else? No doubt similar arguments were put up in the past against homosexuality, votes for women, porn, freedom from slavery etc??
I see that in China Google has agreed to move all 'unofficial' sites (ie ones the Govt doesn't want the population to see) from its searches. Another great idea to prevent the people from 'harming themselves' with scary thoughts no doubt! The trouble is with many PC liberals is that freedom really means "freedom to behave in a way we approve of". I don't want to take crack, climb mountains, smoke tobacco, ride horses, be vegetarian, have affairs etc, but does this mean I should disapprove of others doing such things?? I don't think so. Whilst working as a motorcycle courier in London, three friends got killed in accidents in 2 months - does that mean motorcycling should be banned? No!
Alcohol was once banned in the US and organised crime thrived supplying it. Drugs are now banned and organised crime thrives supplying them. But what about the hypocracy of it all? In the UK 10 people die every day on the roads - and we have the lowest death rate in Europe! Should we ban driving 'to protect the people'?
Alcohol is a massive killer throughout the western world, tobacco more so - but why isn't that banned? Should the Govt really spend time and effort hassling and imprisoning smokers and drinkers? We are used to accepting these drugs and their associated problems, but suffer from upper hypocracy when it comes to other drugs. Why?
Stuff the nanny state! Freedom to the people. Inform and educate - That is true liberalism.
olde drunk
Oct2-04, 01:31 PM
all drugs can be harmful. i hate to expose a secret, but a meaningful percentage of those in rehab are there because of perscription drugs; the majority women.
the war on drugs is lost! the pushers (and many doctors) are getting rich while we are wasting tax dollars. let's collect taxes, not waste them.
cars kill also, we don't make them illegal we make them safer. education, not hearsay and myths, will make it safer to use them properly.
i often wonder how many of our past ideas and inventions came from expanded consciousness via drugs, booze.
love&peace,
olde drunk
i often wonder how many of our past ideas and inventions came from expanded consciousness via drugs, booze.
love&peace,
olde drunk
You mean scholarly works like "dude where's my car"? lol
Blimey, drugs can be harmful?? I didn't know that? People do silly things too? oh err!
Once again, FREEDOM. Who are you, I, the Govt, anyone, to dictate what a person does to their body if it harms no one else? No doubt similar arguments were put up in the past against homosexuality, votes for women, porn, freedom from slavery etc??
I see that in China Google has agreed to move all 'unofficial' sites (ie ones the Govt doesn't want the population to see) from its searches. Another great idea to prevent the people from 'harming themselves' with scary thoughts no doubt! The trouble is with many PC liberals is that freedom really means "freedom to behave in a way we approve of". I don't want to take crack, climb mountains, smoke tobacco, ride horses, be vegetarian, have affairs etc, but does this mean I should disapprove of others doing such things?? I don't think so. Whilst working as a motorcycle courier in London, three friends got killed in accidents in 2 months - does that mean motorcycling should be banned? No!
Alcohol was once banned in the US and organised crime thrived supplying it. Drugs are now banned and organised crime thrives supplying them. But what about the hypocracy of it all? In the UK 10 people die every day on the roads - and we have the lowest death rate in Europe! Should we ban driving 'to protect the people'?
Alcohol is a massive killer throughout the western world, tobacco more so - but why isn't that banned? Should the Govt really spend time and effort hassling and imprisoning smokers and drinkers? We are used to accepting these drugs and their associated problems, but suffer from upper hypocracy when it comes to other drugs. Why?
Stuff the nanny state! Freedom to the people. Inform and educate - That is true liberalism.
Why not just come out as an anarchist now?
Some people have addictive personalities or children who don't know any better and they'll use cocaine just to try it. Or why not just remove all gun restrictions so kids can play with guns? Then we can just "assume" that they are smart enough not to shoot themselves.
There are no restrictions on cleaning products, the way we make sure that children do not drink from it is by putting it in closets they cannot reach and when they come to the age that they can reach it they are well informed that drinking cleaning products is very dangerous...
Parents should not hand their children guns, cleaning products or cocaine, and will probably not do so, no law is needed for that
Please tell me at what point we say no. At what point do the social cost outweigh the limited restrictiveness on our freedoms? How many dead crack babies does it take for you to put down the pipe? I'm just curious..
The social costs of strictly prohibiting are probably much higher. As has been said the alcohol prohibition in the beginning of the twentieth century is a clear example of how crime rises under prohibition. The drug related problem in major cities nowadays is also a clear example of the negative effects of the “war against drugs”. In many neighborhoods young children are tempted to go into the drug business, just because it seems an easy way to make something of their lifes. It is not easy to be a criminal in most senses, but buying and selling drugs is very easy, no matter how fierce the war against it.
The existence of the ghetto’s where many crack baby’s are born, is mainly caused by the fact that such easy and abundantly available substances are worth as much as gold, which is caused by laws that keep it away from those who want it, and that by doing so drive up the prices artificially.
We should not try to “protect people against themselves”, that is simply synonymous with oppressing them and you will have a “war against your own civilians”.
People, we have laws to protect us, not restrict us. If you deny the laws in the name of freedom, you just invite anarchy. When you get high and it affects someone else, it becomes a problem.
The laws should protect us from harm done to us by others, by things we cannot control. We should not be “protected” against what we want ourselves; that is contradictory.
this link is another informative site of why i claim that marijuana is truly illegal...and you the tax payer gets to bear the brunt of it and pay for those in jail because of it...
Jack Herer (http://www.jackherer.com/index.html)
well that site's a little interesting....
Moonbear
Oct3-04, 09:15 PM
Here's another interesting site.
http://eartheasy.com/wear_hemp_clothing.htm
The hemp plant commercially grown for fiber has no significant value as a recreational drug.
And here is an article that describes the genetics of low-THC containing Cannabis.
de Meijer EP, Bagatta M, Carboni A, Crucitti P, Moliterni VM, Ranalli P, Mandolino G.
The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.
Genetics. 2003 Jan;163(1):335-46.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/335
This would suggest that if you're arguing marijuana should be legalized in order to re-establish the hemp fiber industry, you don't need to legalize the drug because strains of the plant grown for fiber and for drugs are different.
Here's another interesting site.
http://eartheasy.com/wear_hemp_clothing.htm
And here is an article that describes the genetics of low-THC containing Cannabis.
de Meijer EP, Bagatta M, Carboni A, Crucitti P, Moliterni VM, Ranalli P, Mandolino G.
The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.
Genetics. 2003 Jan;163(1):335-46.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/335
This would suggest that if you're arguing marijuana should be legalized in order to re-establish the hemp fiber industry, you don't need to legalize the drug because strains of the plant grown for fiber and for drugs are different.
i am well aware that hemp is far different then marijuana :smile: and as stated in my previous posts, marijuana the drug needs to be legalized because we are wasting tax dollars on a drug war that will never be won...if hemp is legalized for industrious use, then marijuana isn't that far away from being legalized either. the stigma of marijuana being so horrible for you is generated by the uneducated-i bet most of them don't realize that hemp is the fibers of the plant and the marijuana is the flower of the plant. i see hemp clothing and specialty products all the time, yet there are so many more uses for it that would save billions of dollars in industries that are wasteful and reap huge profits off the average american-you and i mostly.
moonbear, i have done my homework on the subject, and i feel strongly about it for political reasons. when having done some reading on why it is illegal, it makes me angry since we as an american society love our alcohol and yet it causes way more destruction then marijuana ever would if it were legal. it seems hypocritical of our society. there are some studies out currently that suggest marijuana also could be the next green prozac based on "anecdotal evidence"-the same evidence that was used when marijuana was legalized for medicinal purposes that helps Alzheimer's, Krohn's, MS, AIDS, glaucoma, and those unable to eat due to nausea from medication they must take. bottom line, it is illegal mostly due to interfering with big corporations most likely sponsering the anti-marijuana ads (and by the way, watch one of those and note how subjective they are in stirring up the "loser" stigma).
just curious, did you read the link?
Adrian Baker
Oct4-04, 11:49 AM
Hemp is not illegal in the UK - crops are grown, under license, in many areas - it is a superb material and should be more widely used. It is v. low THC and you'd need to smoke a field full to get high.
Cannabis based products are undergoing medical trials here in the UK too. Without a doubt it is a very useful drug for MS sufferers as well as for those with severe nausea from chemotherapy for example. The Govt seems reluctant to agree to its use though as it 'doesn't like to condone the use of illegal drugs'. Hmm... Let the ill suffer as it isn't good politics not to?? Strange argument! They do seem to be moving towards allowing medicinal use though, so fair enough.
Zantra, I'm happy to admit to Anarchist tendencies, ("Anarchy for the UK, It's coming sometime and maybe..." - Sex Pistols, 1976) but rather an Anarchist than a Hypocrite. (if you ever drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or drink coffee that is).
It is a strange society that allows high profile adverts on TV and in papers for addictive and harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, yet persecutes and imprisons people who prefer other drugs (some more dangerous, some less so).
Gerben, your comments above are exactly right - I wish I could have expressed myself so well.
It's a lost cause. It's like talking to a brick wall. People who smoke weed do so no matter what damage it does, so they obviously don't care about the legality or morality surrounding it's use. I didn't expect to convince anyone. To each his own.
Cheers.
It's a lost cause. It's like talking to a brick wall. People who smoke weed do so no matter what damage it does, so they obviously don't care about the legality or morality surrounding it's use. I didn't expect to convince anyone. To each his own.
Cheers.
i wouldn't assume anyone advocating this smokes :rolleyes: ...what i am advocating is how ridiculous it is for this substance to be illegal so the common taxpayer dollars can house those in prison for it and the police waste their time on these users. you are right, it won't change-so why do we continue to keep it illegal and pay for a system that will never change? i agree with adrian..if you drink or smoke, you are a hypocrite if you claim that marijuana is horrible for you-sure, if you consume 20 joints a day! users who smoke will smoke maybe 1-2 a day average...recreational users, that in a week! in my opinion, those who assert the "claim" that it is a dangerous drug (assuming you are not operating a motor vehicle) are completely brainwashed by the stigma society has cast upon you...think for yourselves :smile:
No the problem is that since it's illegal, the people who DO use the drug are more often than not irresponsible, and the kind of people who DO do stupid stuff like drive high...legalizing it wouldn't improve the situation because then you'd just have responsible people and MORE irresponsible people using it.
que sera sera
Adrian Baker
Oct4-04, 04:07 PM
No the problem is that since it's illegal, the people who DO use the drug are more often than not irresponsible
Hmm... interesting point backed up by what?? Your personal prejudices maybe? Quick Question - is it better to take a dangerous and harmful legal drug promoted and taxed by the Govt, or an illegal drug that is less dangerous?
and the kind of people who DO do stupid stuff like drive high...legalizing it wouldn't improve the situation because then you'd just have responsible people and MORE irresponsible people using it.
You were correct earlier - it is like banging your head against a brick wall!
My arguments are based on principles such as freedom, and evidence such as lawlessness due to Prohibition, prisons full of drug users, streets with territorial drug wars going on, and our present drug laws.
Your arguments seem to be based on what you think may or may not be good for people, and on rash statements about people being irresponsible if 'allowed' to take drugs that are already availiable on every street corner and in every school (I speak from experience here).
Must go now, being irresponsible I'm off to smoke some crack and then race around the roads at 100mph.....
Hmm... interesting point backed up by what?? Your personal prejudices maybe? Quick Question - is it better to take a dangerous and harmful legal drug promoted and taxed by the Govt, or an illegal drug that is less dangerous?
You're going to refute something that is common knowledge? Turn on the news and watch for the reports of "accident was caused by intoxicated or under the influence driver".
How many examples would you like? I can probably go to any local paper's website and get you some links in about 5 minutes. It's common knowlege.
You were correct earlier - it is like banging your head against a brick wall!
My arguments are based on principles such as freedom, and evidence such as lawlessness due to Prohibition, prisons full of drug users, streets with territorial drug wars going on, and our present drug laws.
Your arguments seem to be based on what you think may or may not be good for people, and on rash statements about people being irresponsible if 'allowed' to take drugs that are already availiable on every street corner and in every school (I speak from experience here).
Must go now, being irresponsible I'm off to smoke some crack and then race around the roads at 100mph.....
Not every user is irresponsible...No I didn't say that.. but let's think about it.. if you're using an illegal drug, what other laws do you see as "loose guidelines?" You can't assume that though they may use illegal drugs, they are upstanding and smart enough not to use the illegal drugs responsibly.
Crack and guns are available widely too... should I pick some up for you? Just because it's there, doesn't mean you need to have it. You're the one going wth the anarchist "screw everyone else as long as I get mine" premise. Of course if you accidentally take my weed and I kill you for it, I shouldn't be punished, because that would restrict my personal freedom :wink:
But I guess I'm just trying to annoy you with all this talk about laws and moral and such. I have to run too as I'm late for my bible thumper meeting where we talk about your satanic misogynistic ways, and how to use prayer to change things :uhh:
You're going to refute something that is common knowledge? Turn on the news and watch for the reports of "accident was caused by intoxicated or under the influence driver".
How many examples would you like? I can probably go to any local paper's website and get you some links in about 5 minutes. It's common knowlege.
Not every user is irresponsible...No I didn't say that.. but let's think about it.. if you're using an illegal drug, what other laws do you see as "loose guidelines?" You can't assume that though they may use illegal drugs, they are upstanding and smart enough not to use the illegal drugs responsibly.
Crack and guns are available widely too... should I pick some up for you? Just because it's there, doesn't mean you need to have it. You're the one going wth the anarchist "screw everyone else as long as I get mine" premise. Of course if you accidentally take my weed and I kill you for it, I shouldn't be punished, because that would restrict my personal freedom :wink:
But I guess I'm just trying to annoy you with all this talk about laws and moral and such. I have to run too as I'm late for my bible thumper meeting where we talk about your satanic misogynistic ways, and how to use prayer to change things :uhh:
zantra, still waiting for your statistics on your opinion of "The problem with MJ, just like anything else is that people don't use it responsibly, and cause injury to other people. This gives it a bad vibe."
i doubt you have any personal experience with the plant yourself...and if you did, most likely you would remain sitting home watching a good movie eating cheetohs...marijuana does not make anyone feel agressive-in fact, many people use recreationally because of how relaxed they feel. honestly zantra, you need more OBJECTIVE understanding of it before you spout off how irresponsible users are. i am not comfortable having people with no objective understanding of the substance making the laws of it-thus why we have our drug war problem. i have supplied plenty of evidence of why marijuana being illegal IS a big problem, and i am still waiting for your evidence to show that marijuana causes injuries to others. if you are unable to provide evidence, then i can assume you have a moral and uneducated perspective against it-something this science forum ironically does not endorse.
we all know religion is not a way to run a free government such as america-why let those who are religiously against a substance that is less harmful then alcohol dictate the law? if marijuana suddenly became legal zantra, where would you then stand on the subject? are you against it because it is illegal, or because of a percpetion that has been planted within you by what others have told you? i am confident it is not because of any evidence you have, otherwise i am sure you would have provided by now.
I gave up- as it there's no point. Even if I post these statistics it won't change anyone's mind, so I'm not wasting anymore space. For me the topic is closed. I stated my opinion, and that's good enough for me.
Oh and FYI, I've burned down my share of fatties, thank you very much-Way more than you, I'd wager. I know exactly what it does...though I personally prefer ritz and cheese to cheetos... but I digress..
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.