Is Legalizing Marijuana Worth the Risks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sweet & Intellectual
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the legalization of marijuana, highlighting both potential harms and benefits. Critics argue that marijuana can cause brain damage and memory loss, advocating for its continued illegality due to health concerns. Proponents emphasize that legalization would allow for regulation, potentially reducing trafficking and enabling safer consumption. They also point out the medicinal benefits of marijuana and argue that many substances, including alcohol and sugar, can be harmful in excess. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a divide between concerns over health risks and the desire for personal freedom and regulation.
  • #91
Zantra said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Zantra said:
Then I guess we should legalize cocaine, crack, methamphetmines, MDM, and heroin right away- then people can choose their 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!
 
  • #93
Adrian! You're back! or I haven't seen you. Either way, welcome back to my world.
 
  • #94
Adrian Baker said:
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:
 
  • #95
Kerrie said:
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.
 
  • #96
Sweet & Intellectual said:
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.
 
  • #97
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?
 
  • #98
here is an interesting website that has some statistics about marijuana addiction vs other substances-both legal and illegal...
http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html
 
  • #99
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).
 
  • #100
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 don't 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.
 
  • #101
jimmy p said:
Adrian! You're back! or I haven't 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...
 
  • #102
Adrian Baker said:
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.
 
  • #103
Zantra said:
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.
 
  • #104
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.
 
  • #105
Kerrie said:
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 their 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.
 
  • #106
Zantra said:
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.
 
  • #107
Kerrie said:
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..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #108
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.
 
  • #109
Zantra said:
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?
 
  • #110
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.
 
  • #111
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
 
  • #112
olde drunk said:
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
 
  • #113
Adrian Baker said:
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?
 
  • #114
Zantra said:
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

Zantra said:
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”.

Zantra said:
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.
 
  • #115
Next time you complain at the gas pump...

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...

http://www.jackherer.com/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
well that site's a little interesting...
 
  • #117
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.
 
  • #118
Moonbear said:
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?
 
  • #119
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #120
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
45K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K