Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 26 2006, 08:49 PM

NOTE:
Before you hit that report button,you should know that this thread is aproved by stargelman (Administrator) himself.

Do you think marijuana should be legal everywhere?
I personaly have no problem with that.Marijuana is completly legal in Nederlands,so why shouldn't be legal in every country in the world?I completly agree with Nederland policy about it:

1.NO PERSON UNDER 18 CAN BUY MARIJUANA
2.MARIJUANA CAN BE CONSUMED ONLY IN SPECIAL PLACES (in Nederland they are called ''koffe shops'')
3.YOU CAN ALSO SMOKE MARIJUANA IN YOUR HOME,BUT NOT OUTSIDE HOME (not even on your balcony)
4.YOU ARE ALOWED TO HAVE ONLY 3 MARIJUANA PLANTS IN YOUR HOUSE.BUT YOU CAN BUY AS MUCH AS YOU WANT IN THE LOCAL KOFFIE SHOP.

There.At least this is what i know.

I don't support any other drugs,such as cocain,heroin,crack and that kind'a stuff.That's just to dangerus.Marihuana is like cigaretes or even better example alcohol:You know it's not good for your health,you know that after smoking it you're not gonna be so normal,and you know that you can become an adict (just like cigaretes and alcohol).

So why would you ban an adult to buy what he\she wants,IF he\she wants it?
Give me your opinion about this.

FINAL NOTE:I understand that this can fire some strong emotions in you if you don't support this,but try to be calm.Instead of flaming,post why you're not supporting marijuana global legalisation.

For those who don't want to expres their opinion publicly,i made this a POLL,so you can give an anonymus vote.But please,don't be shy and share your opinion with us.This is not a flame thread,i'm expecting this to be a civil debate.

HyPN0

Posted by: Tellie Apr 26 2006, 09:02 PM

Marihuana is drugs...and drugs are drugs, no matter if they are less dangerous...they should be illegal...ALWAYS.

Posted by: Kiln Apr 26 2006, 09:06 PM

This thread is not going against any rules so nobody should have a reason to report it unless it gets spammy or gets a bunch of flamers.

As for the topic, I really couldn't care one way or another about marijuana being legalised. Myself, I've tried things that alter my mind (aka drugs) and I don't like them, I want to be in control of myself one hundred percent of the time. Thats not saying that I'm against marijuana being legal I'm just stating that I won't use it so I don't care much either way.

If this sounds anything other than civil then I apologise as that was not my intention.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 26 2006, 09:13 PM

Well,alcohol is a drug too.But it's legal everywhere,it's dangerous (especialy in driving),just about the same as pot.So,should alcohol be forbiden too?
Not flaming,just asking.


There is a rule on the forum that forbids ''illegal topics'' so i thought i contact the admin,just in case.
And your post was perfectly civil.Why would it be anything else?

Posted by: Alexander Apr 26 2006, 09:25 PM

I would say yes to legalisation.


I'm from the Netherlands myself and it's legal over here, I think legalising it accomplishes much more then what's being done in many countries right now, at least when it's legalised, you can regulate it somewhat.


And I also don't think it's any worse then Smoking, and most definitely not worse then drinking alcohol, yet that's legal everywhere and is often even encouraged while marihuana is seen as one of the worst things ever.

Posted by: Foster Apr 26 2006, 09:53 PM

I am 100% against the legalisation of cannabis, because of several factors. Firstly there is a mainstream misconception about the facts of what it can actually do to you. The health risks are purposefully played down by the pro-legalisation groups, when in fact the scientific evidence for their claims is spurious at best - they quote facts and figures and ignore other evidence, but then that's the same with all arguements. They say things like "There are myths that...", all to really further their own agenda. Really the internet is a terrible place to look for facts because there are the true, the dodgy, the downright dodgy, and the downright lies.

Anyway, from my experience of users of it, I can say that they are generally ignorant of its effects. I know a few of them that even believe it's perfectly safe to drive after smoking the vile weed, and it isn't. They tend not to mention the fact that it can cause impotence, too. And there is a lot of emerging evidence which is indicating links to lung cancer (as with any burnt matter - that's right, BBQs can give you cancer), and also, in people who are more prone to psychosis, it can make it more likely to develop a psychotic episode.

Medically, in my professional opinion there is no benefit of using cannabis over already licensed medications. Does it have medical benefit? Well, for every piece of evidence for, there is one against. I don't know. What I do know is that firstly there are alternatives, secondly those alternatives have undergone years of testing to make sure that they are as safe as possible (no drug is 100% safe, obviously, but as safe as possible), and thirdly those alternatives are legal, with good reporting mechanisms if there IS a problem - something that doesn't exist currently with street drugs for obvious reasons, meaning that the demonstration of safety evidence by the pro-legalisation lobby is, in my opinion, questionable.

I think that the alcohol and smoking arguements are getting away from the point. Cannabis supporters use this to say 'well, why can't we do it too'. At the time, alcohol and smoking were believed to be harmless enough. Of course now we know the facts about smoking there is a great big line being drawn, the fallout being endless. Alcohol is something I have great experience of, and it's a major problem in society today. It's one of THE major problems in society, and will cause a lot of problems. However, I reckon that, positions reversed, it wouldn't be legalised today. The reason alcohol prohibition failed wasn't so much the fact that it was a forbidden fruit, it was more because there was already a demand for it; basically, people were already hooked. If the majority of people wern't drinkers, then it might not be legalised because of the dangers.

Ultimately, a line has to be drawn. If Cannbis was legalised, then why not MDMA? People will start to say how much safer it would be if drugs were legal, because then there would be no tablets made from whatever crap the dealer has around, but rather through manufacturing standards. Ultimately the arguements used for cannabis legalisation could be converted until you can wonder into a corner shop and by some crack rocks, a few lines of cocaine, and a spoonful of methadone to wash it down. So where do you draw the line? Personally, I think that the line has been drawn in a sensible, reasonable place.

On an intresting aside, there is more than one way to take cannabis - you don't HAVE to smoke it. The resin is far more potent, and far more dangerous. And there is more than one form - Skunk, for example. These are other facts the pro lobby seem to airbrush over.

Posted by: ThePerson98 Apr 26 2006, 09:54 PM

Im against drugs, if I had a choice I would make beer and alcoholic products illegal, many people a year die from alcohol.

Alcohol makes people lose their minds, and do dangerous things, Ive heard frightening stories of what alcohol does to people, not only its drinkers.

I dont support marijuana at all.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 26 2006, 10:12 PM

So you are against alcohol?Well,look at it this way:You know it's bad for you.You know it's not safe.You know you can become an adict.
Cannabis suporters are allready aware of the effects,and they STILL want ito consume it.So why forbid them?I say if Alcohol can be legal,marijuana can be legal too.Offcourse marijuana has no medical benefit.But does alcohol?No,it's simply there for people enjoyment,but i do agree that people shouldn't drive after consuming these two.And what's that about smoking and alcohol being ''harmless enough'' Those things are just the same as marijuana (IMO)

Well,since you don't support alcohol or marijuana,that opinion is expected.But i still think when alcohol or marijuana are consumed aproprietly (not too much)they can't couse any serius harm.But in LIMITED dosages!

Posted by: Foster Apr 26 2006, 10:19 PM

Because it isn't just the supporters that are hurt - it's other people too. There is a large difference between the two substances - culturally. Alcohol has become an accepted cultural phenomenon, whilst in the general public cannabis has not. Alcohol is (with a few exceptions) of no medical benefit in the drink form, I agree. But just because alcohol is bad, doesn't mean that we should also allow another bad substance to be legal.

And I didn't say smoking was harmless enough. I said at the time it was believed to be. The link between cancer and the countless other health problems is a new revealation, compared to the centuries of use of it. I'm pretty sure the Victorians didn't believe they were blackening their lungs and creating squamous metaplasia. My point was that previous ignorance let through some bad things, and that shouldn't be used as an excuse to let through another.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 26 2006, 10:30 PM

Well,that's not exactly true.Here in Nederlands,people are quite used to marijuana,and i didn't see much complains.I'm certain that people in your country would accept marijuana if you give 'em a little time.It's an optional thing.You can smoke,but you don't have to.Marijuana can be consumed only in special places, and at your home,so that other people wouldn't be endangered by it.

It's a choice.As i said it should be alowed to adults ONLY.A grown man\woman should know what's good or bad for himself\herself.

Posted by: Taillus Apr 26 2006, 10:52 PM

The biggest thing about this statement is that for every one person that would use these substances appropriately, there would be an exponentally larger percentage that would abuse them.

What are the benefits of legalization? Will it better society? I think not. It will just add to the list of things people can become dependant on and like it has been said before, where is the line drawn?

Personally, I think things are perfectly fine without marijuana being legal. The people they catch here that are growing it are nothing but scumbags and I can just tell that if it were legalized, Canada as far as I could tell would go belly up.

No thanks for me, keep it illegal; it just leads to much worse from what I have seen and experienced.

Posted by: Kayla Apr 26 2006, 11:19 PM

I see nothing wrong with its use. But, I think that it should be used in moderation. Around here, we have a huge drug problem. The drop out rate at my highschool is rediculous. And everyone I've known to drop out, has done so to smoke weed. Plus, there is also the risk of cancer. I know someone who smokes marijuana, and has lung cancer, but will not stop.

I think it can have very dangerous effects on people who use it too much.

Posted by: Foster Apr 27 2006, 12:42 AM

I don't think its a matter of waiting for them to accept it, but rather making an informed choice for whats best for the majority of people, who in my country have elected for those representatives to make those choices. I'm sure that people in my country would learn to love guns if we legalise firearms, but then I'm also sure that gun crime would soar.

Now, legalising it doesn't automatically mean that people won't break the law with it. Taking for example a smoking ban in restaurants - still flaunted. Just because you try and limit the use by creating certain environments doesn't mean that they will be adhered to. Now you could argue that by not having those contained environments, there is no control anyway. However, whilst it is illegal there is also a lower percentage of the population smoking.

Also I completely disagree with your arguement that legalising locations rules out danger for other people. The effects arn't instantly stopped the moment you leave your house or joint cafe! There is nothing to stop someone under your proposed system smoking up, leaving the designated area, deciding whilst under the influence of a toxic substance that they're okay to drive, and haplessly plowing into a kid on their way home because their reactions are impaired.

Posted by: ThePerson98 Apr 27 2006, 02:20 AM

Very few people today have self control. If they find being drunk fun, then they get drunk, being drunk makes it so you dont think correctly, they go and drive and hit someone.

With ANY drug people are going to hurt themselves and others if its legal. Even if in small amounts its good for you, people are just gonna use a lot of it.

Posted by: 1234king Apr 27 2006, 05:00 AM

i for one would vote yes on legilisation. even though i dont preferably like it, it's not the worst thing in the world. i've tried weed once with my friends, and it wasn't all that great. it was actually kind of stupid. and i dont want to flame person, but not everyone who gets drunk go's and drives a car. a lot of the time they will juss pass out or do soemthing stupid like get in a fight and get knock out before the even get to their car. juss a question hypno, where are we talking about legilising marijuana. for some people drugs even help. i know a person who needs to smoke one once of week to be able to fall alseep.

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 27 2006, 05:46 AM

But you see there are billions of dollars made to manipulate evidence against the use of marijuana, and only the anti-marijuana groups are the ones that can actually make money by keeping it illegal.



That's heavily exaggerated. There are links between psyxhosis and marijuana like there are links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda, they're overplayed, there's not much to them, and their used for an agenda.



What about the man that murdered, molested and had plans of eating a girl he kidnapped due to wild fantasties triggered by being on zoloft? Evidence is spilling out the walls of the major dangers of widestream antidepressants like xoloft, prozac, paxil, etcetera. Do you really think marijuana is less helthy than that? How about diet pills, which are basically legalized speed. Speed is a hard core drug on the streets, and yet they are manufactured and bought. How are medicines approved by the EPA any safer? I mean allergy medicines cause anal leakage for god sakes.



The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't, isn't because of the market out there for it, it's because this country, when it was a colony, was stapled by alcohol and tobacco. All other drugs were competition. That''s why they were illegalized.



Marijuana is less dangerous than cigerettes, alcohol (by far), and all other drugs, even advil has a bigger health risks according to most studies. Why don't we draw the line by telling the EPA to stop allowing drugs that cause heart disease? Why don't we draw the line to illegalize ciggerettes? A line is not simple, if a line were to be reasonably drawn then drugs have to placed in reasonable positions. Cigerettes are mutagenic and carcenogenic, and the addicting is one that trains the cells to crave tobacco, which marijuana does not.

Hell, why even make acid illegal? Acid is less toxic than coffee or coke. Or Cocaince, cocaine is less dangerous to your health than many diet pills.



Not at all, people who want pot to be legalized STRESS these things.

On one hand I'm kind of glad marijuana is illegal, because it adds to the rebelliousness, it keeps it interesting.

Posted by: Tellie Apr 27 2006, 08:50 AM

I respect that...I must say, the reason I think Marihuana should be illega, is that it is a strongly narcotic drug...alchohol, is another kind of drug...and it requires LARGE quantities over long time to cause addicyieveness...drugs however, couse addictieveness, VERY fast, and most drugs goes out over the main nerval systems...after a while they can break it down, and basically stop the eniter body.

Drugs are about the viles most dangerous things one can inject into them...sake for actual poison that is...well, that is my reasons.

Posted by: stargelinho Apr 27 2006, 10:12 AM

Actually, that is not entirely correct.

Alcohol causes additiction much quicker than most people realize. And not all illegal drugs work the same way. Crack for instance pretty much causes instant addiction after a very very short time. Heroin and cocaine works pretty fast too. Marihuana is a bit different in that the addiction it can cause is not physical, but mental.

And I'm sure that last sentence of your post does not apply to marihuana either, because if the central nervous system were to break down, you'd die - and I've never heard of someone dieing of marihuana. Of course, the smoke is still bad for your lungs, and driving while under the influence of drugs is really stupid, no matter what drug was used. And there is that bit about marihuana probably causing latent shizophrenia (I think it was?) to surface, as well as paranoia for some people - that's what I heard anyway.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on these matters.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 10:43 AM

Oh,i'm sorry to hear that .I also agree it must be used in moderation.There are many people out there,who are using it in moderate dosages,and not every day (only by weekend).Your post also makes a bad argument against marijuana,which is completly true,but it's the same thing with alcohol.I have a freind in y homeland who's father is an alcoholic and his lever is completly screwed up,but he still refuses to stop drinking.Very sad

Oh?And leaving a bar all drunk doesn't?How many accisdents are happening out there because of drunken drivers?
And how will you limit a man to smoke IN the jount caffe?Easy.Just hit 'em in the pocket.A large fine (not prison fine,but money fine) and they won't do it.I mean you can try it once,but when the police officer comes to you and showes you tha amount of money you have to pay,trust me,you won't do it again.This works for Dutches very well.

That is not completly true.There are people that have self control when they're drunk.Me,for instance.The morning after i'm drunk i know exactly what happened (and that's when i'm REALLY drunk)the other night.I know that i can't walk properly,so i stay away from bridges,or anything you can fall in.When i'm drunk,i'm not driving,i always call a taxi.It's beter to pay some rediculus money now,then to die for nothing i say.I can always go pick up my car in the morning.As for your argument about people using it too much,i will take Nederland for example.There are a LOT of people that know that it's legal,but they're still not using it.Just as with alcohol,it's a metter of choice.How much are you gonna use it:It's again a metter of choice.But even if somebody smokes too much pot he\she won't be able to just MOVE,let alone to drive a car.

Ah yes,weed gives that slepy feeling.I don't know how people thing they can move when they're that ''heavy''Exept when you're mixing it with energy drinks.Whoo,that's something completly else And to answer your question i was talking about global legalization,in non-medical purposes.Sorry i didn't point that out i'll edit my starting post.
EDIT:Actualy i did point it out allready.''Do you think marijuana should be legal everywhere?'' is right in my starting post

No,that's not true.Marijuana is not a strong narcotic it drops in light narcotic together with alcohol.Durgs DON'T couse adictevnes very fast as you say,if you're using them in correct dosages.The thing that you're gonna be an adict to the rest of your life is a stereotip of over-commercialased anti-drug campaign.Hell,i know peope that are smoking marijuana once a week,and they're not adicts by a long shot.If they're adicts,then i'm an alcoholic,because i get drunk once a week.About using large quantities:Well a noob in alcohol will get drunk after 2 or posibly one beer,while a normal man need about 5-6.That's not a really big quantity considering you can drink that in a short time.As marijuana goes,a smaller dosage it's needed,but the effect is completly same.While you think that large quantityes of alcohol are needed to become an adict,hell,large quantityes of marijuana are needed to become an adict.And that's it.
Now who told you that marijuana can stop your body from working?You must be talking about ecstasy(spelling?).Ectasy can really mess you up the first time you try it out.About the fact they're going through your nerv systyem:Hey,they're going right in your brain.If alcohol is stuck in your stomach you won't feel a thing,but when it comes to your brain......then you'll feel it.I don't think you can die from marijuana itself.

Posted by: Foster Apr 27 2006, 01:15 PM

How are the government making money by keeping it illegal? Wouldn't they make more money due to taxation if they made it legal? They must have a pretty good reason not to legalise it, then.



In my opinion, having looked at the evidence, I believe that there is a link between psychosis in people predisposed to those conditions, and use of marijuana. I have absolutely NO agenda on this, and I think that the research done is sound.



I think that firstly the cases you are stating occur in an incredibly small portion of an incredibly large population that take those drugs. The incidence of side effects is widely and accurately reported, and the government constantly makes choices based upon the risk/benefit of certain drugs. I think that cannabis has absolutely no benefit at all compared to other available (and safer) medications, and that it does have risks - which therefore outweigh the benefits. Yes, I think cannabis is less safe than the drugs you have listed.

Intresting you mention the SSRIs. If you actually look at the medical guidelines you'll see that there are clear, set out standards of when to use and when to avoid. They have a big 'no' when it comes to 'History of Mania' and other such instances. You're talking as though this was a normal guy, doing his thang, and just taking the tablet made him go fruit-loop. Obviously he wasn't, or he wouldn't have been taking it in the first place.

All drugs have side effects that CAN occur. It doesn't mean they will.



Intresting historical theory. Advil, like all NSAIDs, can cause stomach ulcers. If you use them on a chronic basis, which they aren't meant to be used - just ask your pharmacist, he'll give you some actually decent information about the health risks. Also I know of no study that compares the health risks of Advil directly to the health risks of cannabis, cigarettes or alcohol - which studies are you talking about?

The line is drawn, like I said, because of risk compared to benefit. Also I think you might want to look at why one of the Cox 2 inhibitors was withdrawn - that would be because of the cardiac risk, then.

Cannabis is also mutagenic and carcenogenic, and it CAN be addictive. It's in a small minority of the population, but it can be.



So, after all of that, your main reason for liking it is that it makes you feel cool?

Posted by: Olav Apr 27 2006, 01:19 PM

Well as a musician (mostly former musician) I've met many people who have smoked mariujana/hashish. I must admit I've also tried myself a few times, but like someone else said above I like being in control of my own brain...

But there are many kinds of 'smokers' out there, and generally two kinds that I've experienced: Those who smoke normal joints of weed and get in a real good mood and friendly and peaceful and all that, and then I've seen people who mixes almost no tobacco in their hash (not mariujana), put it in a huge waterpipe, get completely stoned and spend the rest of the day staring into a wall completely out of it, often all alone.

Some of my former musician colleagues who did this latter have later gone to heroin, and some have died (two rather close friends), and some are now either on the streets doing crime to get their drugs or are struggling in different rehab programs. I'm happy to say that one of my closest (former) band-mates has successfully gone back to society with a good job, although he's destined to use a special substitute-for-heroin medicine (can't remember the name) for the rest of his life.

Anyway, regarding the first group of smokers I mentioned, I can honestly say that I believe that if everyone moderated their smoking, and only smoked marihuana/grass/weed and not hash, I firmly believe that there would be no wars on our planet! Then again there would probably not be much else accomplished either, but that's another issue...

Finally regarding the issue of legalization I'm not really sure what would be best.

With legalization there would of course be less crime, since it would be legal. And people would be more open about their smoking and since it was legal they would probably feel better about themselves (clear conscience) and thus be happier and more active in society etc.

With drug use illegal most of us know the issues: Crime, people smoking in secrecy, maybe all alone, getting paranoid and depressed, quit school/job etc.

When I read what I just wrote it seems like a simple choice, but there's probably more to it than that...

Posted by: minque Apr 27 2006, 06:09 PM

Ok....when I was young(er) I tried marijuana....I even had agreenhouse outside my house with a couple og huge plants, really beautiful they were, I very much like the shape of the leaves!

Anyway I prepared it thoroughly...and kept it for a long time in a glass-jar. My husband didnīt really fancy the whole thing but.....well

So I tried it....but it was not the first time though! The first "drug" (except from tobacco and alcohol) I tried was the resin of the cannabis-plant. Now that experience was not very pleasant.....I was totally silenced, could not utter a word, but my mind was all clear ..hmm very odd indeed. It took a long time before I dared to try it again.....but I did and the opposite reaction occured....hmmm that was it .I decided never to try that stuff again

Now then....the leaves, properly roasted mixed with tobacco...was a complete different thing! that was nice.....did not give any side-effects..at least not on me. But I never tried it after tyhose few times when I hsad my own plants.

Since I became a mother I never touched it. I have not felt the desire to either, so it canīt be that addictive..really

Then itīs far worse with cigarrettes!

I regard myself as a liberal person. I think the stuff very well could be leagalized! Like in the Netherlands!

Ok itīs mainly due to my not-so-bad experiences maybe!

ok my 2 cents..

Posted by: Ze Milanio Apr 27 2006, 06:20 PM

Well, neither am I. Although many people here would bash my head against a wall for saying this I would have to say "yes" on the issue of legalisation. I have done that damn green stuff more than a few times when I was younger, but today I really don't feel some special physical or mental urge to start smoking it again, so and I am not so sure it would be like that with cigarettes...

p.s.: holy C.R.A.P. you won't believe me, but I just found a small ammount of canabis in one of my drawers, unrolled... must be some leftover from the army I forgot about what now ?

Posted by: Fuzzy Knight Apr 27 2006, 06:23 PM

I have so many opinions about this subject that I really don't what to answer. I've got friends who have tried out all kinds of drugs and I know the effect and all that. But as smoking, drinking and such it causes more problems then it does good - But I really haven't looked into this subject much or how it's going in the Netherlands where it's legalized so I'll stay on a yes/no...

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 06:42 PM

Hehe,nice post.

You tryed marijuana without tabbacco? Whoah,now that's strong.......I understand why you're not smoking it anymore.Not to show the kids a bad example,eh?Well i suppoe that when a man\woman comes in a certain age,such things are not needed.......But you agree that it should be legal,and that's my opinion exactly.Why would one forbid an ADULT to buy what he\she needs?

Oh,hello countryman!I just noticed where are you from!I see you have the classic Belgrade ''slack'' attitude about this kind of things.And those Ajs Nigrutin songs are just encouraging it further
And about that you have found in your drowers:God wants you to smoke it....you know it......

Posted by: minque Apr 27 2006, 06:50 PM

No..ehh I did mix it with tobacco! Sorry I was unclear about that! But you are right I donīt really need it....then if I happened to find some...hmm I just might try ..but then again .....I might not!

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 06:55 PM

Well,kids don't have to know just everything.Hmmm...........
Seriusly,i define it as a ''spice for a good mood'' ,IF it's used properly

Posted by: minque Apr 27 2006, 07:16 PM

Yeah! the green stuff is far better than the resin.....the leaves is a lot more tasty....

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 27 2006, 07:46 PM

Foster, Marijuana can settle chronic sickness due to chemo-therapy, it can relieve glaucoma behind the eyes. It's often used to combat anorexia. It can act as a pain reliever for many different types of symptoms. Those are all benefits. here are other benefits, non-medical.

It brings people together of many different backgrounds. It helps broaden your perception. If not in moderation, just like advil, alcohol, or water, it can lead to problems. For instance, a very unhelthy pair of lungs, and an extremely slight chance of lung cancer, but you'd have to smoke marijuana at about the rate that average smoker smokes cigerettes to have the same chance of getting lung cancer as a smoker, and even then not all smokers get lung cancer. Not only that, cigerettes contain things like kerosene, gasoline extracts, arsenic, all in very low doses.

Oh, and you're right about medical drugs, because they're legal, and therefore are regulated, put through studies, tested thoroughly (though occasionally a pill slips out with confounded testing an a whole bunch of people wind up with heart disease) people have figured out the proper dosage of them. Take alcohol, since alcohol is a legal recreational drug. They have determined legal and illegal, and dangeroud blood-alcohol levels. You have to be 21, if you sell alcohol you need a liquor license. They don't have the same regulations on marijuana because it's illegal.

And here's where the profit for the anti-weed lobby come in that you were questioning. Marijuana is competition with alcohol and cigerettes even though it's safer and has far more benefits, this economy is already too invested in alcohol and cigerettes.

Posted by: SleepWhilstYouWork Apr 27 2006, 07:47 PM

Because of so many irresponsible people in the world it would cause far too much damage. So no I don't support it.

Posted by: metalskull Apr 27 2006, 08:00 PM

I say It should be legalized so at last its trade could be regulated

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 08:09 PM

Oh?
If someone is irresponsible,he\she wil be irresposnible without using marijuana,or alcohol,or whatever.What does that have with use of drugs?

.........just as out dear admin Alexander said.

Posted by: minque Apr 27 2006, 08:42 PM

I think the dutchies have a cool approach to a lot of things....such as Mary Anne and ..well other stuff, not mentionable here but you know what I mean.....Hmm gotta go there soon I reckon!

Oh and another thing.....the trade was mentioned! Yes I agree on that one too! And donīt forget "forbidden fruit " If it were legal it maybe would get the "heat" off it and it would maybe loose some of its charm...

Posted by: Dantrag Apr 27 2006, 08:58 PM

Those of you who smoke should be hoping that it stays illegal....No taxes. Seriously, if it were legalized, it would be taxed horribly. Think of the cigarrette tax.

On the 'forbidden fruit' argument, it really wouldn't help much. Sure, marijuana would lose its charm, but some harder drug would take it all for itself.

In the last topic like this, I was all for the legalization for marijuana, mainly because I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do with my own body. but, my opinion has changed somewhat.

My brother has been on drugs recently, and it's messed him up pretty bad. He lost his job, dropped out of school, got way in debt, lied to my parents about what he was using his 'lunch money' for, etc. I hate seeing my brother struggle with this (he's trying to quit), and I don't want anyone else to ever have to deal with this. So, basically, no, I hope it is never legalised. The fact that it's illegal has kept me from it, maybe it will keep others away too.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 09:21 PM

Heh,visit us sometimes in Nederlands,and tell me what you think......I can see it already:Wow a marijuana store!And it's a caffe too!People are relaxed in it,just smoking their joint .you can even see people rolling a blunt on the streets,even openly smoking it,even though it became illegal to smoke it on the streets.And the odd thing is:Nobody will say you anything.People will just pass right beside you even if you're smoking weed!In my original country,i belive they would hang me for such a thing.......

Well as for taxes go,i can get the pack of weed here for 5-10 euro and one pack contains enough material for about 3-4 joints.How's your country?

I'm sorry to hear about your brother.Such things are posible,but it's the same thing with alcohol:If you use it too much,you become an adict.If you use it in moderate dosages,it can be fun.As i sad in my starting post i don't support other types of drugs,only marijuana.It's a light drug,and it can't be dangereus,again i repeat,only if over-used.

Posted by: Dantrag Apr 27 2006, 09:35 PM

It's the US. They tax everything. (It depends on the state, but it's usually high)



Obviously, everything is bad if you do it too much, but it only takes one stupid person to kill or hurt many more when using drugs and alcohol. (especially driving) I'm all for it if it's on your own property and by yourself, but when you bring others into it, that's when it gets bad, and when you don't have as much control of yourself, it's almost impossible to keep it to yourself. Those people that get addicted often have to steal just for their next high. I'd rather protect the innocent bystanding majority than the marijuana smoking minority.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 09:51 PM

Yeah,i get your point.
As stargelman said,it's stupid to go driving under any narcotic.
What i want to say is that marijuana can be leveled with alcohol,as comes for your personal safety.When it comes to others,well if you're an idiot you will go driving drunk and druged at the same time.Driving under marijuana is a
If you already loaded yourself with alcohol or pot,just call the damn taxi i say.Your life,and lives of others are more important that paying for a ride.

As for your comment of stealing:Well marijuana is a relatively cheap drug,and i think that anybody can afford it without stealing.The real money gets spent on heroin,and similar crap.

Posted by: Dantrag Apr 27 2006, 09:54 PM

I agree totally on the fact that marijuna is on par with alcohol, and could be a fun activity, but I couldn't help but rant about the stupidity of people in general. If we could do away with those drinkers/smokers that bring others into their problems while still keeping the substances legal, I'll be all for it, because that's their business what they smoke or drink,not mine. I have a problem with it when they use their rights to voilate others'.

Posted by: Foster Apr 27 2006, 09:55 PM

I know this is a synthesis, but I think what the arguements are boiling down to in the pro section are pretty much "We know its bad, but shouldn't we have the choice?"

Is that about the gist of it?

Posted by: minque Apr 27 2006, 10:02 PM

Danny Iīm sorry about your brother! When you have it so close then I suppose itīs quite another business!

I hope he will succeed in quitting the stuff....

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 10:05 PM

Foster,every narcotic is unhealthy.Legal,or not legal.

And you pretty much got the rough point:It's as bad as alcohol or cigaretes,so why is it not legal everywhere?As i said it's fun if used in normal dosages,you can't become an adict if used in normal dosages,so why the heck not?I also stated that it must be alowed for ADULTS ONLY,and as an adult,you should know what's good for you.I also INSIST of not using other strong drugs.That would screw up society a lot.But the way i see marijuana is doing here in Nederlands:I say it's pretty normal for it to be legal everywhere.

Posted by: Foster Apr 27 2006, 11:16 PM

Oh, it's not just narcotics. Every DRUG can have bad effects. Anyway, just because it works in one country doesn't mean it's going to work in another. Take for example that other great institution of the Netherlands - Prostitution. I'm pretty sure that legalised prostitution wouldn't work everywhere, based on the opinions and beliefs of the society.

Anyway, I've made my viewpoint on the whole subject clear, I was just trying to work out your arguements, because pretty much all the pro-legalisation messages have done so far is debate the opinions of the non-legalisation camp by relating other issues into the equation. Kind of like what I just did with prositution. Ah, I'm such a hipocrite sometimes.

Posted by: Olav Apr 27 2006, 11:25 PM

Prostitution is legal in Norway as well, but get this: Buying sexual services is not legal.

Anyway I think this is an ok solution. It keeps the prostitutes out of prison where they would probably become criminals, and their customers - which are normally quite wealthy and 'respectable' citizens - just get a fine if they're caught. Saves the government money and prison cells, and even makes them some money with the fines...

Sorry for the OT sidetrack, but I just felt like saying this...

Posted by: Dantrag Apr 27 2006, 11:35 PM

But many of the prostitutes (at least in the US) are little more than slaves, being forced to work to gain someone else's money.

I don't think that's an 'okay solution' for those people.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 27 2006, 11:41 PM

I will tell how it is in Nederland:Those prostitutes earn a lot more money than an average citizen.So much of being ''slaves''......
EDIT:Double,to be more specific

Actualy it looks quite funny:They are actualy siting in VENDORS.
Yeah,you read this right ,in vendors.Nobody forced them to do so,they chose this because of the fat money.

But this is offtopic.If you want to comment my post,please send me a PM

Posted by: Ibis Apr 28 2006, 12:26 AM

I don't myself imbibe in mariquana, alcohol, tobacco or any addictive substance except caffeine, which I did give up but am back on, but I don't mind letting the people who are going to smoke it anyway do so legally. Many of the mariquanna smokers are doing it just for the thrill of the crime they are getting away with - so if you legalize it those people will probably quit. Hopefully they won't pick something more dangerous. And legalizing it will lower the price and take it out of the hands of the mobsters among us.
I think there might be a certain segment of society who would be ultra-nervous in today's hectic world if they couldn't sort of self-medicate themselves into calm with marijuanna. (finally spelled it right ehehe) As for it making for non-productive citizens, I think that it might actually give us more artists and musicians and poets .... which can't be a bad thing considering the harsh of modern day reality.

Posted by: Olav Apr 28 2006, 12:33 AM

Well true, but that has nothing to do with it being legal or not. In fact since it's illegal in the US the prostitutes are probably having a harder life than if it was legal and it was a 'real' job (they have to pay taxes in Norway, but I don't think they do... ). So I still think legalizing prostitution is an 'ok solution'. There has always been and always will be prostitutes anyway...

But I'm sorry once again about being off-topic. Maybe we could start a new thread regarding prostitution...

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 29 2006, 02:51 AM

I think the dangers of weed are heavily exaggerated, and that our society would be no worse off than it is because cigerettes, alcohol, or TV is legal. It's just not a big deal, at most people get stoned too often and act washed all the time so they become useless human beings, but you can blame that on our directionless society, where it's cool to not want to do anything with yourself, and as long as you don't want a future you see nothing wrong with getting high every moment you get. Weed is no more addictive than good grapes.

Posted by: Olav Apr 29 2006, 03:05 AM

Well that shows that there are differences in societies. Where are you from, btw? In Norway it's 'cool' to get as much education as possible and get the best job possible. Turns everyone into slaves of ambition, and people are all stressed out practically from they're born and until they die (from stress )



I got a strong urge for grapes after reading this line, although I hardly ever eat grapes!

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 29 2006, 03:37 AM

I was talking in the US.

Posted by: Ze Milanio Apr 29 2006, 11:18 AM

De si, zemljache and it's actually 'Classic NISH CITY "slack" attitude'
Nah, God doesen't concern himself with such petty misbehaving... but anyway, I've taken care of that lil' stash I had, so there's no need for worry now (and no, I'm not telling you what did I do with it ).
Anyway, I've tried cannabis mixed with tobacco a few times and all I can say is YUCK tobacco is Teh Devil, I tell ya. I'll never understand people who smoke it - but then, no one will understand how I can drink insane quantities of black coffee without sugar.

p.s.: I guess that, at some points, everything causes a living organism to be stressed and damaged - even food and water. Concieder 20 years of drinking tap water dangerous... and then add unproper nutrition, not enough physical activities, coffe + ciggs, alcohol... and voila ! You don't need drugs to ruin your yourself (I'm such a happy camper, aren't I ? )

Posted by: minque Apr 29 2006, 12:45 PM

I would! I do it myself! But yore right almost anything can be dangerous if you overdo it!

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 29 2006, 01:11 PM

Don't worry i'm sure it's gone!
About not mixing it with tabbacoo:Whatever you were smoking was crap.Stop by in Nederland sometimes and try this weed without tabbacco.I'm sure you'll be done in about 3 smokes.the first times i tryed marijuana in Nederlands was without tabbacco,and i had quite a cough.

The coffee you're having in western Europe is NOTHING compared to coffee in Serbia & Montenegro!
While you're having coffee from a coffee mashine we're making coffee in.....argh,i don't know the word.Anyway it's made in a metal ''pot'' and it's a LOT stronger for your stomach.I belive they're making the same type of coffee it Turkey.Give it a try sometimes

Posted by: Alexander Apr 29 2006, 02:16 PM

heh, nice way of putting it but I fear I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion Sleepy.

Responsibility or irresponsibility, if that would be a cause for not allowing something to be legitemate then I guess it's time to ban all weapons, from every country, as well as all alcohol, and all medicine, and all needles, and probably all the knives, forks and spoons and more as well since you can count on some irresponsible people using that to cause damage

Posted by: minque Apr 29 2006, 03:03 PM

Yes...why not.....erhmm....I did try in Turkey some years ago and I liked it so....


Yes Alex...youīre right I agree on that, you have to assume people have some kind of responsibility by themselves huh....

I mean I donīt consider myself as irresponsible just because Iīve tried some "stuff" when I was younger

Posted by: Foster Apr 29 2006, 03:04 PM

I disagree. Responsibility and irresponsibility is a factor - if it wasn't we wouldn't have legal ages for gambling, sexual activity, purchase of alcohol and cigerettes, collection of medication and marriage.

What the judgement is made on is responsibility and irresponsibility being a factor in a risk/benefit analysis - the benefits of having forks outweigh the risks of someone trying to poke someone with them. The benefits of cannabis (if there are any - the only one I can see is that some people want to use it to relax) are outweighed by the risks.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 29 2006, 03:58 PM

Hmmm,as i said i belive they're serving that kind of coffee in Turkey.It's really strong,and it has some black stuff at the bottom of the cup.That kind of coffee is good for me too

Actualy in my country such limitations don't exist (at least they didn't exist while i was still there,i don't know how is there now).But you said it yourself:Such things are allowed only when a person gets to a certain age.So why not allow marijuana at age 18?I think we all agree that it isn't any worse that alcohol.


Is that so?
And who determines how big risk\benefit does a certain thing have?Society?Government?I will tell you what society\governmet thinks about certain substances:

Alcohol - Risks greatly overweight the benefits.I will only mention some risks such as liver cancer,lack of self-control,some people are quite agressive when they're drunk.While the only benefits i can think of are used in medicine (to clean the wounds or such).100% legal.

Cigarettes - Now let's see:They are bad for your health,you become adictive,you actualy PAY to poison yourself,and you're endangering others.I mean WTF?That defyes every posible logic!But people WANT to smoke cigarettes,they are aware it's bad for health and adictive,but they still want to do it.Nobody's forcing them to do it,they chose it themself,even though they know the risks. 100% legal,no benefits.I quit smoking,but even today when i'm drinking coffe,i say:Damn i could use a cig right now.But it's passing over time.

McDonald's - I feel i'lll get flamed for this.The fact is that McDonald's is unhealthy food.McDonald's food can make you fat,has no healthy things for your body,and what most people don't know,it must be eaten right away.Try buying a burger,and keep it for about a week(you can puit it ib your fridge,it won't make a differnce).I sugest you don't eat it though.It may contain diseases, at least people who worked at McDonald'd told me.The left-overs are thrown in containers and locked,so that poor people won't eat it and get a disease. 100% legal,no real benefits (It's better for you to eat that brokoly)

Coca-Cola - Ahhhh!Let's try a test shall we?Get a glass of coce,and put a chicken leg in it.Let 24 hours pass.See the results.The same thing happens in your stomach.That's why you have that thing on your bottle,writen in small letters:You can drink [a certain amount,i can't remember now] a day.Otherwise you can get a diareya(sp?). 100% legal,no benefits to society (better drink some nice clear water)

NOTE:As i said over-use of such things can have bad effects.Drinking a glass of wine a day,can improve your heartwork (confirmed by doctors).Casualy eating at Mac,won't make you fat.Casualy smoking marijuana won't make you an adict,and won't harm you in any way.

Marijuana won't benefit society in any case,that's for sure.
But if an adult WANT'S to smoke marijuana,and he\she knows what are the risks\benefits (No benefits),why forbid him\her to buy it.Wait,did't i already said this in one of my previus posts.Nevermind.

It's not all about ''benefiting'' society.If it was so,we would be living in the world like......You kow that movie with Silvester Stalone?Where everything is forbiden,even to eat bacon (holesterol).That's how would our world look like.Boring and Cold.

Casual(moderate) use of marijuana = Fun,and not dangerous

Posted by: Foster Apr 29 2006, 05:42 PM

Like I've said, just because something bad has got through the system isn't a reason why we should let anything else through.



Really? The same thing happens in my stomach? My stomach? The one with a natural pH that is strongly acidic? The stomach that has Hydrochloric acid in it? The one that is lined with various mechanisms and barriers to stop corrosion because otherwise we'd all be dead from the acid in there? The stomach that has acids stronger than those in Cola, which has a pH of about 2.5? REALLY? Wow. I must have missed something in physiology, or all those classes I've taken where I learnt that cola doesn't corrode your stomach. So on that point, you've been taught incorrectly. Pepsi was actually made to initially sort out stomach pains.

And do that experiment yourself. The concentrations of the acid in Cola are so low that all you'll have is one soggy chicken leg after 24 hours. Oh, eventually it'll corrode. But 24 hours? That's an urban legend, nothing more.


The rest of it I'm just going to refer to our previous arguements on it, seeing as you're repeating exactly the same points, and I'm just going to repeat the same points I did.

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 29 2006, 05:57 PM

I probably forgot to mention that i'm not an expert in such things.But what i wanted to say is that if used too much,it can have negative effects (you didn't quote that part of my sentence )And that's personal experience


Fair enough.
I did notice that i'm repeating myself constantly

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 29 2006, 07:14 PM

Foster, there is no risk/benefit factor taken into consideration by our government. It may exist to you, but to most companies and politicians out there, the risk is less money, the benefit is more money.

Marijuanas benefits outweigh the risks, the way I see it. In fact, the way I see it, they HEAVILY outweigh the risks. Cocacola risks DO NOT outweight the benefit, unless you are an invester in Coca Cola, or a lobbyist for Coca Cola, or a politician lobbied by coca cola, in which case there's a lot of money in it for you to keep coca cola popular.

Note: In california public schools are not allowed to have coke in their vending machines or food services during school hours, as well as most other drinks and snacks with too many calories.

Anyway, the same story goes for pharmceutical drugs, such as antidepressants. In my opinion, these new antidepressants' risks outweight the benefit. Sure, you can SAY "Don't use if you have a history or mania, or if your pregnant, or if you're young, or if you've ever been to las vegas..." but obviously if a man kidnapped, murdered, raped and planned to eat a young girl because his antidepressant medication was triggering his mania and giving him bizarre fantasies (true story) then something went wrong. But, again, there's a gigantic lobby to keep them legal which adds a lot of pressure to politcians not to touch them, it makes people ignore the strange test results they got from them.

I mean, the studies weren't thorough enough when it came to what happens when you stop taking drugs like zoloft and prozac. The answer hit the US back up the boat with teen suicides as caused by the antidepressants. Now tell me the benefits outweigh the risks. Of course, it depends whose using them, if the perfect candidate (Joe, a 30 year old perfectly sane man whose life is perfectly balanced and is well passed his rocky teenage years... and has never been to Vegas) takes them he's fine. But we live in a society of misdiagnosis, and plenty of people will still be given drugs they shouldn't be.

If marijuana was legal, the same warning would be there as cigerttes, and to the same degree since cigerette warnings in the Unites States don't really capture the picture of what cigerettes do to the body. People would know the proper dosage, people would be more likely to follow the regulations put in place for marijuana, just as using them in the proper clubs, and here's the big one... IT'D NO LONGER BE A GATEWAY DRUG!

Here is why weed is a gateway drug, I'll spell it out for you. You're in smoking sessions with people every week, and for many kids every day. You're buying it from people who are consciously doing something illegal, and know how to not get caught, and like making money. Many dealers around here carry other things besides weed. Many people around here do other things besides weed, when I smoke weed with these people, I'm introduced to other illegal substances.

Alcohol doesn't have the same problem. You can get alcohol straight from a store, and even if you couldn't people would buy it from the store to get it, you don't have to go through some sketchy dealer. Marijuana would be the exact same story, and therefore by legalizing marijuana, you'd actually make kids LESS LIKELY to try cocaine, heroine, meth, etcetera. You'd be striking a blow against the drug cartels by taking out one of their products. God knows they took a heavy freaking blow when prohibition ended.

Posted by: Ibis Apr 29 2006, 07:49 PM

As far as prostitution goes, it is legal in Las Vegas and works out fine there.

As far as marijuana goes, it is illegal now all over the United States and not only is it making evil drug gangs in South American countries rich who subjigate their own people horribly .... but that same money is also invested in terrorist activities like Al Kaida (however you spell THE DEVIL'S CURRENT NAME.) Also, the same drug gangs that sell marijuana also deal in harder drugs like cocaine and heroin and they have enslaved way too many of our American citizens with these monstrous drugs.

IF Marijuana were to be made legal, that alone would lower the prices and take the substance out of the hands of these drug monsters and put it into the government probably who would tax the living slurpy out of it like they do alcohol and tobacco or individual companies like Marlboro, Winston-Salem, etc. who would then bare the tax and pass it on.

A much more amenable solution to me than having South American scoundrels controlling the economy of the richest country on earth at this time or for the terrorists to have their talons anywhere in our affairs.

Ibis has spoken ... no more will I say on this subject.

Posted by: deedo Apr 29 2006, 08:07 PM

What an interesting thread, a global marijuana conversation!

My perspective:
We are talking about two large issues sort of superimposed.
1. cost/benifit of marijuana use.
2. role of government.

I can tell you the jury is still out on the danger of marijuana. Scientists are only now beginning to understand the mechanism of cannabinoid action. The first receptor was found about 7 years ago now and a second receptor was just dicovered a couple of years ago. People have made mice with mutations in those receptors and the phenotypes are complicated and puzzling.
Other studies on marijuana affects are flawed, biased surveys that often rely on self reporting and have no controlls. Studies such as these have linked marijuana to psychosis etc. Untill a mechanistic link is found you should be very skeptical about news reports written by journalists regarding the scientific literature. They almost always exagerate and sensationalize the scinetific substance.

As to the role of government, that is a VERY personal thing. I think the only way to establish the role of government is democratically. In this I think the U.S. fails. In the American state of Oregon the citizins repeatedly vote for legalization of marijuana but the federal government repeatedly exerts it's judicial supremecy to overturn these laws.

The debate on marijuana must be a debate on the role of government. The science is still too immature to be used for policy.

It all boils down too: Do you think the government should be able to ban things simply because they are not healthy.
i.e. is part of the role of government to monitor the health of citizens?

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 29 2006, 11:01 PM

Rather deedo, that's not my argument, that's not what it boils down to me, because the government didn't ban marijuana out of health issues. That wasn't their reason. They banned it because of political and monetary issues. I can't stree this enough, the only reason marijuana is illegal in this country is because it benefits the tobacco and alcohol industries, which have been lobbying this government since it was born.

Here's a good example. After the end of prohibition a man invented synthetic rope. Of course, hemp rope was stronger, why would someone use synthetic rope when they could use a natural kind? He was just one man involved in a gigantic lobby that occurred right around the end of prohibition. Another man? The current head of the FBI. Why the FBI would want marijuana illegalized, you ask? Because after prohibition, the FBI had nothing to do, and they were about to lose most of their funding.

Posted by: Foster Apr 29 2006, 11:18 PM

What are the benefits?



I'm guessing you're not a doctor, pharmacist, or allied medical professional? I apologise if you are, but I'm guessing not because your understanding of pharmaceutical treatment, psychosis diagnosis and medical knowledge seems to be totally lacking. You also seem to have absolutely no idea what it takes to get a drug onto the market - clinical trials ad nauseum. You're looking at eight to ten years before something is determined safe for the public, as well as countless determinations of the benefit of the drug (that's right - drug companies aren't just allowed to push out anything - they have to prove benefit) and even then there is no way to predict the effects, so drugs are immediatly pulled if they are shown to cause these deadly symptoms you're hyping so much (just look at Vioxx). So the antidepressants cause suicides? Rarely. You're looking at an incredibly small percentage of the total users of the drug. Compare it to the percentage of suicides there would be if they didn't take them. What exactly are you arguing? That nobody should take antidepressants? That a disease state is better than taking medication, because of and incredibly low risk? What are the test results that are supposedly covered up by this conspiracy theory lobby? And the healthcare professionals in charge of drug regulation don't care more about some lobbyist pressure than the safety of the general public. THAT is nothing more than a complete lie. Healthcare professionals act on the best data they have to make the best choice they have, which is ultimately a risk/benefit analysis. Personally I couldn't give a rats turd that Drug Company X is offering such and such over Drug Company Y - I recommend what I consider to be the best drug choice, balancing safety, efficacy, and cost. Of course the fact that drug licencing means that a drug is allowed to be manufactured by generic companies after a certain time, thus effectivly nulling the profits of the drug manufacturing company doesn't enter into your arguement.

The data on ceasation of taking the SSRIs (that's Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, acronym fans) is pretty damn thorough. It's well known that it can lead to withdrawal symptoms - that's why the doses are tapered when people come off them.

And before you go quoting your crazy cannabal man, if he's got manic episodes to trigger, then he shouldn't have been taking an antidepressant. The treatment of even bi-polar disorder is significantly different from plain old depression. As for misdiagnosis, it happens. Of course it happens - human error can never be removed. What we have and are constantly trying to achieve is the safest system possible, to make sure those cases are as limited as possible.

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 30 2006, 12:27 AM

This is becoming incessantly a strawman argument.

Furthmore, I understand the trials, but what you seem oblivious to are the other factors. Vioxx went through 3 years of testing and was put out on the market before testing was complete. And yes, a small percentage of people committed suicide due to anti depressants.

Here is where the straw man comes in, my argument WAS NOT that all pharmaceutical drugs should be pulled, it's just that there is strong hypocracy when it comes to drugs like prozac verses marijuana. Marijuana can and has been used medically as an anti cepressant, and it certainly doesn't trigger suicide or cannibalistic fantasies.

So, this is my point, in showing how difficult it is for legal drugs to get on the market, how much of a trial it is, how much they keep count of the risks and benefits, how much they are careful over the side effects and how much scrutiny every drug is given, can you not agree it'd be more beneficial to keep marijuana legal so that it, and it's vendors were kept under the same scrutiny?

This is where I will again list the benefits of marijuana:

Medical:

*Relieves glaucoma build up behind the eyes

*Takes some of the edge off chemo-therapy side-effects.

*General mild pain reliever

*Battles eating disorders

Those are the four main reasons here in Marin County, California, medical marijuana is legal. That means if you are over the age of 18 and have been prescribed marijuana treatement by a doctor, and have your medical marijuana card, no police officer of any city in this county will arrest you for usage of marijuana. It also means you can purchase Marijuana at the Cannabis club.

Now for the recreational benefits:

* Relaxation, stress reliever, etcetera (already more beneficial than hundreds of other legal substances with more risk)

*Trigger openness and confidence in a more clear headed manner than alcohol

Imagine, for a moment, if marijuana was legal for medical purposes in the United States. There would be less organized crime, less young people slipping away into harder drugs, similar warning signs about the proper usage and dosage, more availability to find out if you should or should not be using it, less usage of more dangerous drugs such as alcohol or cigerettes, and lastly, a lot more useless people because of the small percentage that will overdo it and act washed all the time.

Posted by: Foster Apr 30 2006, 01:56 AM

Keep it legal? It's not legal where I am. And personally I don't think that it ever should be. Control and regulation of a substance isn't a justifiable reason on it's own to make something legal. There are other considerations, which I've already put.



I'm suprised you didn't bring up the supposed benefits in muscle pain for MS patients, that's always popular. The fact is that the research done into cannabis has...some evidence that these may be right. But the majority of it is anecdotal, and not of a particularly high standard. Plus all things you've stated have treatments currently that have been shown to work, with very good evidence - treatments that work better than cannabis. Of course with that you've also got a drug that lists slurred speech, sedation, blurred vision and dizziness as part of the package, the increased risk of heart disease, and all the other fun that cannabis smoking brings - going beyond THC you've got all the other junk that goes into those joints.



I can't say I've ever tried it, so how if it relaxes you or de-stresses you I don't know. I don't think though that just because something relaxes or de-stresses you (or indeed triggers openess) that it's a reason to legalise it, given the other implications of the substance. I don't think it's more beneficial, and the less risk part - well, nah, I don't really agree with that either.



I disagree; I can't see organised crime being lowered, the information out there about it (you're always going to have interest groups no matter what that distort/lie), I can't see people going 'Oh, I think I'll smoke a joint instead of having a drink' - more likely they'd do both, and I'm not really sure what your point about the useless people is. Having more useless people isn't a good thing.

At the end of the day, every arguement that has so far been put forward for legalisation has ultimately come down to people believing that they've the right to choose if they can harm not just their body, but also the bodies of others. There is, in my opinion, no justification for the legalisation of cannabis.

Posted by: DoomedOne Apr 30 2006, 03:30 AM

Yeah, I should probably withdraw from this discussion, but against my better judgement I'll keep arguing.

You keep talking about how all the risks and benefits should be accumulated, and yet you claim I believed stress relief was ENOUGH to legalize it, again drawing a strawman. Stree relief is merely a plus.

Organized crime is different from regular crime, and of COURSE it would lower organized crime. Marijuana is their gateway product, from where the start is to gain all there other users. Again I say for the second time, look what happened to organized crime after alcohol was legalized. It flourished during prohibition, and now it's a shell, surviving only as columbian cocaine cartels and such. The only reason marijuana is a gateway drug is because it's illegal, and yet at the same time mostly harmless. Because of those two factors, not only are kids non-reluctant to try it (expecially at an age where it's important for them to test boundaries and enforce their individuality) but they're also inadvertantly forming connections to other illegal drugs just by smoking it, only because it's illegal.

And I wasn't saying more useless people was a good thing, it was mostly a test to prove you've spun me into the label of the "pro lobby" where I can say nothing bad against marijuana. That's not true, I believe people who smoke too much become useless human beings until they stop for a long period of time. I, and most of my friends, smoke responsibly, it's not hard.

So yeah, I've repeated myself enough for one argument.

Posted by: deedo Apr 30 2006, 08:49 AM

Marijuana can be harmfull, irresponsibly used it can cause harm to the user and those around him/her. I think we can all agree on this.

Foster would refuse to allow this. He would authorize his government to have this power over him and others.

I think things have to be somewhat more nuanced. I do not beleive the government has the right to ban something simply because it isn't healthy. I also do not beleive something should be banned because there is a slight chance it will cause someone else harm.

Many products in our modern world are dangerous if abused. Few people have tendancies toward abuse. The factors that lead to substance abuce problems are complicated. Understanding these factors and designing rational therapies is needed.

Part of the role of government IMO is to invest in research, another part is to ensure honest buisiness among citizens. Government should not be allowed to legislate health.
So what about choosing to use a product with known risks?

Posted by: stargelinho Apr 30 2006, 01:06 PM

Just an interesting observation. When it comes to marihuana, I keep reading of organized crime and violence and stuff like that. I'm a bit surprised. Where I come from, most of the "dope" comes from people that drive over to Holland and buy it in coffee shops, and smuggle it back here in shall we say rather creative ways. Through the treaty of Schengen, there shouldn't be border controls at the borders of the member countries of the EU anymore, but there are lots of controls around the "green" borders of Holland

Yeah, a few guys are selling stuff in the parks and they play cat & mice with the police, but I don't know of anyone stupid enough to ever buy any dope that way. Most people I know that smoke get their stuff through friends. Buying from a real life drug dealer...nah. You never know what's in their stuff. You keep your hands away from that.

I can only speculate that it must have been similar during the time of prohibition in the US: you'd only buy booze from someone you'd trust. The risk would have been to high: you'd have bought from someone who you trusted not to mess up the distillation.


Also, another observation on this gateway stuff: perhaps it's just that things are different here, that drug dealers don't play as important a role as elsewhere, but I've never in my life heard of anyone who started with marihuana and ended up with crack or cocaine or something icky like that. Perhaps having an alternative means of getting their dope meant they never got into a situation where they got tempted to try that [censored]?

Oh, and one other thing. Marihuana is not legal where I live. But if you get caught with less than 5g of it, usually that means they take that away from you and most of the time just send you on your way. Obviously, it's not considered that horrible a drug anymore .

Posted by: SleepWhilstYouWork Apr 30 2006, 01:11 PM

I thought my point was clear with that, that legalising it there will be a certain amount of irresponsible people who will abuse, over dose, and any more number of things making it dangerous to themselves and others.

Although I do agree with Alexander on the point that atleast then the Trade can be regulated. Its a complicated issue.

Late reply to that I know, this forum moves really fast : /

Posted by: stargelinho Apr 30 2006, 04:15 PM

Overdose? How's that work with marihuana?

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 30 2006, 06:50 PM

Yes,i do. IRRESPONSIBLY is the key word here.


That is true,.There are a lot of controls in Nederland,not only Holland.
Holland is a region in Nederland,that rougly translated would mean ''hollowed land''.It's a region than includes Amsterdam,and area around Amsterdam
BTW where are you living?
5 grams and no fine?
Not even a warning?Well,it's a posibility that your country will legalise marijuana too,judging by their aditude .In my former country,it's a prison fine i think.But police is always taking bribes (just buy them a beer and they're happy),but that's another story


You mentioned over-dose.Over-dose with marijuana isn't posible.It's posible with a heroin or such stuff.When you smoke too much (speaking from personal experience),you will get very sleepy.Then you go to your bed,and wake up in the morning(basicly it's the same as with alcohol,exept you don't have a bad headache). So much about lethal danger to yourself by over-dose.It can however be dangerous to yourself in other ways,mentioned several times in this thread.

The post above answers your question.There is no real over-dose.

Posted by: Alexander Apr 30 2006, 08:46 PM

Actually, I don't know anyone for the past several centuries that has referred to that part of the country as Holland. There are two provinces that do have holland in their name yes, north and south holland.

ah, and not to nitpick, but...



/end offtopicness



as to the overdose thing, one can no more overdose on marihuana then one can on cigarettes

Posted by: HyPN0 Apr 30 2006, 09:05 PM

[offtopic]
Yeah,thanks for the heads up
I see you gave me that quote from wikipedia article (reading it right now )
I'm still fresh to your country and i don't really know a lot about your history.....But learning!
[/offtopic]

As for over-dose:well it wasn't the same when i smoked too much cigarettes and when i smoked too much marijuana.It's more acurate to compare it with alcohol i think.

Posted by: ThanadoS Apr 30 2006, 09:12 PM

hmm legalize it and drug bosses will loose big gains.
legalize it to empower governments, in some cases blind-headed war machines who will use the money, and that's for sure, for a crusade to get get even more cash.

Let it as it is. People will smoke, dumb people will continue (same as nikotin, alk, opium, no difference, really), smart ones will quit.

What's my point? None. As in maybe 200 years, people will quarrel on the legalization of silicium joints, gamma-radiation plaster or... vacuum shocks.

Posted by: minque Apr 30 2006, 09:47 PM

Not overdose cigarrettes? Well....actually I think it can be done! Imagine youīre having a reeeally big party, lots of booze and therefore lots of cigarrettes..at least if youīre a smoker!

Now..in the morning the non-smoker have a hangover..thatīs it, but the smoker! He has a hangover AND a throat that feels as if itīs covered with the skin of a hairy pig!

OK OK....you probably donīt die of smoking too many cigarrettes on one time but you certainly feel........baaaaaad.....ick! (believe me....Iīve tried!)

Posted by: Foster Apr 30 2006, 11:23 PM

You can only overdose on nicotine if you smoke, use patches and chew the gum at the same time, all far in excess of what you want to do.

See, your body runs a lot of stuff across nicotinic receptors in the... anyway, you can get muscle paralysis or have a heart attack. Either way you've pretty much got to be aiming to do that, and if I were going to OD on a drug, that wouldn't be my choice.

I know that's off topic, but I thought that fell into the 'public information' category of feeling-obliged-to-tell-peopleness.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 1 2006, 12:24 AM

God, imagine the addict, 6 cigerettes in his mouth at a time, plus like ten patches. I wonder if it's possible to become immune to nicotine's poisonous effects?

Posted by: Black Hand Jun 22 2007, 10:03 PM

Sorry for the Grave-Digging people.

I quit smoking marijuana seven years ago. I WAS a pothead. Pothead refers to the 'chronic' use of Weed for recreational purposes.

MARIJUANA IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE!!!!!...psychologically, yes. In fact there is no SHRED of MODERN scientific evidence that supports this outdated and biased theory. I can tell you from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that anyone who tells you this is full of it.

Anyone who has never done Cannabis and tells you that it is bad for you, is like a Virgin telling you that Sex can get you STDs!!!

Yes you can get STD's from sex, but if you're careful and smart, the chances of that are practically nil. Same concept with weed. Lung Cancer you say? You're far more likely to get lung cancer living in city with all the car exhaust constantly in the air then from somking a little bit each day. Hey! Lets make internal combustion engines illegal!!! They Kill people! They promote suffering and death! And if you disagree with me you support terrrorists and the devil!!

For those who dont support the Legaliztion of weed, fine. Thats your opinion, you are entitled to it, heck you're even in the majority right now. But having been a Pothead, a heavy drinker, and current ciggarette smoker, I would tell you that of these three things, I would firstly wish that none of these things would enter my childrens lives, but knowing that they will be their own people, with their own choices to make, I would far rather they took up weed which is currently illegal in the states, then alcohol or ciggarettes, which are currently legal.

I say this from my own personal experiences, having walked the path, rather then having someone else tell it to me. I know which of these things is the far lesser evil, and it shames me to live in a world where we would promote drugs in the first place, and then promote ones that are actually addictive over one that hardly qualifies as a drug.....

Posted by: Zarrexaij Jun 23 2007, 12:35 AM

Now to reveal the libertarian I am....

At the risk of looking like a pinko left-wing bleeding liberal communist, I am all for the legalization within the limits you gave. I don't do it myself and never well because of my quasi-straight edge philosophy (no casual sex, no alcohol, no smoking) and asthma. However, I have nothing against others using it. As far as psychoactive drugs go, marijuanna is relatively innocent. It clouds your judgement, true, but hardly to the extent of alcohol. If it was legalized, at least production could be monitored so people don't lace it with PCP, LSD, and other wacko hallucinogens. Really, pot isn't that much of a threat. At the most, it makes someone really hungry and lazy.

Besides, people would have much less incentive to commit drug related crimes pertaining to marijuanna, and there'd be less people in jail. It's ridiculous that there's tons of people in jail for drug charges. No wonder there's an overcrowding problem...

For those who say "all drugs should be illegalized," by saying that you include caffiene as well, which is a psychoactive drug under stimulants with amphetamine, methamphetamine, and various perscription drugs that treat ADD/ADHD (which is also fairly harmless), not to mention various pain killers (opiates) that makes recovering from surgery, even dental work less of a nightmare. Just saying, you should do a little research before saying things like that

Posted by: DoomedOne Jun 24 2007, 07:38 AM

I love grave-diggers that bring up good topics. I'd like to reform my argument since I'm not a medical expert and most of what I blabbered was compassion I read, and as I learned from trying to find a good way to flush your system (I have a drug test on Monday) you can't trust anything you read.

So I have only one real argument in favor of its legalization. We live in a liberal country, not liberal as in what conservatives call anyone who disagrees with them, but liberal as in the founding fathers based most of this nation on John Locke's principles. He stole his principles from the native americans, but that's another story.

But anyway, under the orginal intent of the constitution, and under the founding philosophy of this nation, marijuana must remain legal. Technically, since the constitution (including the bill of rights) supercede all laws post-dating it, marijuan still is legal because it's unconstitutional to make it illegal, so after the porhibition when congress decided to try and ban something else since alcohol backfired, they were all actually breaking the law.

If you want marijuana to be illegal, perhaps you would be happier living in a fascist nation. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Posted by: DoomedOne Jun 24 2007, 07:44 AM

Woah, sorry about that admins, my internet was being a real dilwad so I kept hitting refresh and... it reposted it for each one


Excess posts removed! (minque)

Posted by: Daedroth Apr 11 2008, 10:56 AM

This was a pretty strange poll. Do you think drugs should be legal? Do you? Marijuana is way more dangerous than smoking. It does alot of damage. It should be illegal everywhere. I don't care what people say. Drugs are bad.

Posted by: Ethelle Apr 11 2008, 12:41 PM

[rant]
I live in the Netherlands, and I'm sick and tired of tourists coming all this way to our insignificant corner of the world only because 'we have legalized drugs'. Which basically means that we only get the sort of tourism that we really don't need. It's the only sort of tourism, in fact, because there's nothing else of 'interest' here.

Also, when on the rare occassion that I visit our capital city, I hate it that I smell marihuana on every corner of the street. It stinks. Literally. It's one of the main reasons that I hate Amsterdam.

So, I think it's clear that I'm against legalization. I feel terrible when I'm visiting other countries, and people ask me where I come from. "Oh? You're from Holland? What with the drugs and all?" and then they look at me like I'm some sort of criminal, while personally I never touched anything remotely drug-like accept limited amounts of alcohol every now and then.
[/rant]

Posted by: Lord Revan Apr 11 2008, 01:05 PM

For one thing, drugs don't have any good points once you get hooked. They do nothing but ruin people. Frankly I don't like the liberal-conservative arguing on whether doing or not doing things are totally const. or unconstional. Somethings should be looked at with an unbiased case-by-case basis.

George Washington was against America being split into political parties in the first place, but it happened anyway. I disagree with a lot of the limitations placed on the legal situation (double jeopardy), but the point is, I do not believe marijuana should be legal for the overall degradory effect it has on society.

PS: I know how that side of things feel, sometimes I feel like I'm the only person my age in my school who has a set attitude of decency while everyone else is either egotistic, profane, or whatever. Before I rant further, I'll stop here.

As for drinking, I personally I'm never going to drink when I become of legal age. Why whould I be scrambling over myself to taste this thing that other kids my age who've taken a sip say tastes disgusting anyway? I'll stick with the stuff I don't have to aquire a taste for or possibly abuse (sodas).
The problem with alcaholism is that we've seen that Temprance (sp.) doesn't work and never accomplishes it's goal. It's too entrenched in society to simply be removed overnight. As for the drugs that simply make its way to dealers in the U.S., it causes violence and greed in the countries it's grown in before it even gets to the addicts.

From the whole angle alcahol can be made without forcing people to work like slaves, hiring private armies to protect facilities where it's made, etc. In that regard while alcahol is more widespread, it ends up killing a smaller percentage of the people involved (not just the people addicted).

Posted by: Alexander Apr 11 2008, 01:52 PM

I think you might be mistaken. I'm no expert of course, but I do believe smoking is quite a bit more damaging to the body then marijuana. I'm also pretty sure it's more addicting. Now of curse that all depends on how often you use the stuff, I mean smoking weed daily will likely get you addicted to it very fast.



Being from the Netherlands myself, I recognize the stigma. I was in Orlando recently and one of the first comments I got after telling someone from the hotel I was staying in, that I was from the Netherlands was a comment on drugs. At the same time though, I wonder if it's something that we're to blame for, or that others are to blame for? What I mean is, just because we're the only country that has legalized weed, or one of very few countries who have, does that mean we automatically qualify as a drug country? Does that mean the most interesting and memorable thing about our country is drugs? Or does it mean it simply sticks with people, perhaps even because people don't look beyond something like that?

If I were to venture an educated guess, I'd guess the latter.

I believe I've mentioned this somewhere earlier in this thread, I'm very liberal minded in quite a few things, I'm in favor of legalization on soft drugs (weed, hash), I'm in favor of Euthanasia, gay marriage, equal rights to everyone no matter the race, color, sex or sexual preference etc. I've felt that way for quite a while and still do.


Without even going into the arguments supporting legalized soft drugs, could someone explain to me why that in so many countries is not allowed, and frowned upon, while alcohol and tobacco are so commonly accepted into our culture? I really don't understand that. Looking at things like alcohol induced deaths, damages done to the body because of smoking or drinking and so much more, I really don't understand the crusade against soft drugs. (Hard drugs is an entirely different matter of course.)

Posted by: LadySaira Apr 11 2008, 02:31 PM

I'd just like to make one little point of this;

It's only the industrialized, chemical sprayed, nictonie and hundreds of other toxin induced, tobacco that's bad for your health. Namely the way cigarette's are made. My grandfather smoked a tobacco pipe using tobacco he grew in his own back yard with no ill effect.

Just though I'd point it out that it's not tobbaco that's bad for you.

Posted by: Olen Apr 11 2008, 05:31 PM

Tobbacco is bad for you, nicotine is a strong carcinogen and it has varius other unpleasant compounds in it as well as being quite addictive. Smoking is also bad for you because smoke is full of all sorts of nasty things (due to partial combustion) so smoking weed or tobacco are both bad for you. The main difference is that weed isn't addicive.

I would be for legalisation but not from the point of view of taking more, its easy enough to get anyway and legal or not I only have the occasional cake. Making it more availible would cut excessive drinking (which is very common here) and reduce the problems it causes.

There's also the matter that if someone wants to do something which doesn't hurt anyone else its their own business. Soft drugs don't hurt anyone. In fact I'd argue weed is less harmful to others than alcohol (compare bar brawls to sitting looking confused in a corner).

As said very addictive or damaging drugs are a different matter.

Posted by: stargelman Apr 12 2008, 09:00 AM

When I think of Holland, I think of Cassis and small towns or villages with houses that have signs up reading "te verhuur", and ads that say "Bellen & Surfen" which to me as a German sounds very funny.

Marijuana is not the killer it is made out in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhcNegZgU. But it is also not harmless. No drug is harmless. What is necessary is a differentiated look at these things instead of emotional black- or whitewashing.

Marijuana differs from other drugs in a number of ways. When you use something like heroin, the effects will be quite obvious in a rather short time. You'll feel the physical need for more, you get the shakes and you feel horrible - you're addicted and you suffer from withdrawel, and your entire life focuses on getting more, no matter by what means. You'll degrade yourself without hesitation for just one more fix, hell, you might even turn violent.

Marijuana isn't like that. For one it's not as harmful, there's no physical addiction and it doesn't destroy your body like hard drugs. But don't kid yourself, it does change you. It does affect you. Maybe not if you just smoke a joint every now and then, but if you're a regular customer, your life will change in ways you don't even notice.

Trouble with abusing any drug, no matter which, is that quite often you end up using it to push aside what you perceive as problems in your life. You don't see it that way, you might think you're just doing it to relax, but in the life of most people there comes a time when they realize what has been going on in their life, and then, from one day to the next they'll just stop because they realize they've been wasting a lot of their life and they haven't done what they should've done because instead of solving their problems they ignored them. But if you just ignore your problems, whatever they be, they won't go away, they'll just accumulate.

Now you might say if you know that you can make an informed decision and take the risk. But this effect comes so slow and is so subtle you forget all about it. It doesn't destroy your life or anything like that, but it's bad.


I'm still pro legalization because it doesn't make sense to me that people are allowed to buy alcohol but not weed, and you can get it easily enough anyway. However I'd also be for strict age control, because in the hands of adolescents, weed does real and serious danger.

Posted by: Lord Revan Apr 12 2008, 02:56 PM

Once again on the subject of alcahol, the Temprance measures (the U.S.) attempted never worked because people would pay more money for it and make some at home (which lead in many cases to alcahol poisoning).

As far as America goes, alcahol is too deep to be taken away by a simple ban. Both good-quality alcaholic beverages and cigarettes are were (and in some ways still are) symbols of prestige.

I personally wouldn't care if alcahol or cigarettes were banned, no skin off my bone, but it's probably not ever going to happen.

PS: How about this? People shouldn't use drugs recreationally, but good luck stopping them.

And, once again on the subject of Americans and drugs, the drug running in South America probably leads to more damage to everyone involved (the involuntary workers, governments, private armies, AND the addicts) than fatalities due to getting drunk.

Posted by: stargelman Apr 12 2008, 05:29 PM

1. that's almost exclusively hard drugs, which this thread isn't about.
2. you're wrong. Alcohol causes many many deaths every year, mostly due to massive organ damage caused by long term alcohol abuse.

Posted by: Ibis Apr 13 2008, 02:07 AM

I am not in favor of legalization of marijuana and in fact, due to the fact that I now spend my work days selling cigarettes at 7/11 to people with young children and even pregnant woman - I'd like to see people with young children legally only be allowed to buy chewing tobacco (thereby poisoning only themselves but not their innocent offspring) and for it to be totally illegal to sell alcohol or tobacco to a pregnant woman (thereby not contributing to harming the unborn child.) My thoghts, though I have to make regretful sales to these people.

Posted by: canis216 Apr 13 2008, 03:04 AM

I think that if smoking tobacco is legal, cannabis should also be legal. From what I've seen, (I have friends who occasionally use, though I've never gotten high myself) the drug itself is no worse than tobacco. So rather than keep it illegal, which only encourages the various ills an illicit economy can foster, I say that it should be legal and regulated much in the same way that cigarettes and booze are.

Edit: My idea of regulation includes bans on smoking in public buildings, restaurants, that sort of thing. Second-hand smoke is a terrible thing... cigarette smoke quite literally disgusts me.

Posted by: Kiln Apr 13 2008, 03:37 AM

Personally, I think that mirijuana should be legal. Its not exactly a "safe" drug as some may say, in fact it may be worse for you in some aspects. The difference being that the average cannabis user smokes much less than the average cigarette smoker does so the effects are not so frequently noticed. It has also been linked by some studies to psychiactric problems as well.

And also,


That being quoted, I still feel that it should be legalized because I believe that you should have freedom of choice. The dangerous effects of it aren't quite so dramatic as long-term alcohol abuse or cigarette use in most cases but it is still quite dangerous if used too often. It has also been grouped close to caffeine in terms of addiction. I personally don't see much point in prohibiting its use since most people that want to try it don't have to try hard.

Posted by: Ethelle Apr 13 2008, 08:29 PM

You've got a point.

By the way, I'm liberal minded too when it comes to euthanasia. Abortion, even. Not because I think it's a good thing that everyone can run around mindlessly having sex with everyone else without wondering about the consequences, but merely because it's tragic that some women become pregnant after being raped. And also because accidents happen, and those accidents may in some cases destroy relationships and lives. Is that ethical? Yes, it is in the way I view it, but I'll stop before we have a discussion about this completely off-topic idea.

Still, I'm against legalization. It's more of a feeling than an actual well-founded opinion though. I generally don't like the type of people who use drugs, specially not the sort of people who think it's 'cool'. I just can't stand them. I'm fine with people frowning on us because we legalized gay marriage, but I do not wish to be frowned upon because some of our softdrugs are legal. Drugs are completely unneccesary, in my opinion, and if we had to vote to abolish them altogether, I would vote in favour. Although, some drugs, like marihuana, can also be used for medical treatment. That, of course, I'm not against.

Posted by: Lord Revan Apr 14 2008, 02:50 AM

Since people are bringing up political allignment, I'm pretty conservative (as some might notice). I wouldn't resort to demonizing drugs to eradicate recreational use altogether, as I wouldn't for gay marriage, or abortion, but I am resolute in not allowing such things to become the "norm" where I live.

I actually can accept the reasoning behind euthanasia, but that's about it. Like Ethelle, if a drug has real medicinal value it should be used as such, not as something to get high on.
There's too much money in alcahol and tobacco to get rid of it, but as I have said before, I have no reason for sorrow if someone actually accomplishes putting any of the above topics to an end. That is all I have to say.

Posted by: LeTren Thundakk Apr 14 2008, 05:33 AM

No neutral option?

I don't care either way.

Posted by: Alexander Apr 14 2008, 01:41 PM

Concerning that, I think as with numerous other things, marijuana will strengthen behavioral patterns already in someone, perhaps dormant, or perhaps simply suppressed. So I think even the people doing the research would vouch it's not the best argument against Marijuana.






Fortunately, in many cases we can let our feelings guide us Personally, I've never been very fond of alcohol, smoking and such things, for any number of reason and greatly on a matter of principal. But while I might discuss it with others, I've always believed to each their own.

As to users, that's a complicated issue.

I've been around blowers for the majority of my life, older and younger cousins doing it, friends doing it, and I've seen some very different cases.
One friend who's been doing it for as long as I know him, with absolutely no addiction or bad things coming from it. As far as I know that is as he doesn't really live next door
One family member who started it just to try it, and to whom it fast became a habit and beyond that even into a minor (if there is such a thing) addiction. Fortunately, after quite a bit of work he's been able to stop doing it.
One very good friend living nearby who's been on and off of the stuff for years now, for whom it's been completely innocent at times, and an addiction at other times. Adding to that the fact that he's struggling with pains and such, it will be a struggle if he'd ever want to completely stop doing it.
Another family member who used to do it somewhat frequently, then stopped overnight and hasn't touched it since.

And quite a few other cases I could mention, suffice to say though, all of those might have started as an experiment, but the reason they continued it always went beyond "trying to be cool" or something like that

As with so many other things, I think the important factor in whether or not things go bad, lies completely with the user. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is perhaps those people who say they use it to be cool, aren't being entirely sincere, and should you find their true reasons, it might be a surprise

Again, hard drugs and the likes I consider a totally different matter.

Posted by: Black Hand Apr 14 2008, 04:20 PM

Well, I also read something today, if you're a human being on this plane of existence, you're 100% likely to die. Women over a certain age have an equal to completely same chance of knocking of this mortal coil, as a Bonobo in a Cayman Island Wildlife reserve.

Thats not all, it turns out living it up, may actually increase chances of magnitude of doom! The researchers stated that they would need more money before they could continue their research which was moved from Ashland, Oregon. USA to the Shores of Santa Monica beach.

Posted by: Daedroth Apr 14 2008, 09:19 PM

No. I'm really sure about that marijuana is more dangerous. I really am. Believe me. It's proven, although I can't find it on the internet.

Posted by: Olen Apr 15 2008, 07:34 PM

In smoking either a large part of the damage is from the smoke. As far as cancer goes tobacco is probably worse, nicotine is far more carcinogenic than THC (the active chemical in canabis) and some of the compounds it turns into during the preparation of tobbacco are equally nasty. On the other hand I've read that canabis burns hotter though I'm not convinced (and I don't know what, if any, effect that would have on the various unpleasant things in the smoke).

Also consider quantity, very few people smoke 10 joints a day whereas 20 cigarettes a day isn't uncommon, and tobacco smokers smoke everyday. Its also worth noting that marijuana is often not smoked like a cigarette and most of these ways (especially eating or with a vapouriser) introduce comparativly few carcinogens to the body.

I would however agree that chronic use is similarly bad due to the complete lack of drive and the mental problems it can cause.

Posted by: BSD-IES Apr 15 2008, 09:41 PM

As far as the dangers of smoking cigs versus dope:

Smoking a joint uses rolling tobacco, most people who smoke cigs use ready mades - like Camels, Marlbrough etc.

Ready mades use filters at the ends. This is where the most harmful toxins are stored - cyanide, fibreglass and a thousand other poisons. These are used to keep the cigarette burning consistently, unlike a roll up which may require frequent re-lighting. Roll ups have nowhere near the amount of poisons, but they still have one major disadvantage. The paper used to roll with is considerably thinner than normal cigs, so the nicotine enters the blood stream much faster.

Basically, both are bad for you. Dope is bad for you because it uses tobacco. Rolling baccy is bad for you because it still contains nicotine and tar. Ready mades are even worse for you - nicotine, tar, fibreglass, cyanide etc etc.

I do agree with one comment though. When I was younger I used to smoke dope, and never had more than 3-4 joints a day. I gave that up, but I still smoke cigs. I average about 20 a day. And that's not a stressful day. I'm probably doing more damage to myself with my rollups (I did quit ready mades), than if I was smoking 3-4 joints a day still. I just don't particularly want the side effects of joints anymore. For the same reason I don't drink much anymore. I work, and have to be up at 5:30 in the morning, every week day. Alcohol or drugs of any kind make that damn near impossible. So for me, it wasn't a moral decision, simply a practical one.

On the moral level, hell yeah, make it legal. As soon as it's legal, it loses the "rebel" mystique - which will reduce the amount of people using it - and they can tax it. And hopefully reduce taxes on other items in response.

Posted by: Blackdemon Apr 16 2008, 02:41 PM

I don't really care. I voted no because I think smoking dope makes intelligent and active people stupid and lazy. I smoked pot when I was younger but I stopped for no special reason and now I really have no desire to try again. Same for tobacco, though except it was way more hard to stop. Sometimes I think all people I know smoke marijuana and look me as a weirdo because I don't smoke. They try to explain to me the benefit of smoking, as if I was born yesterday.

Here, some "very smart" guys make their own alcool. I tried to tell them at least to remove the core from the fruit but "they know better". Of course, after years of drinking wood alcohol... But what is wrong is they really think their poison is better than the alcool sold in stores and they gladly offer it as a natural product to all their friends and relatives. Same apply to marijuana. Withut any control you don't really know what you smoke and you are confident in criminals to deliver a clean prooduct.
Legalization could be better for public health. And the legal money could find a better use than in the low-life or international crime organizations pocket.

Posted by: Ethelle Apr 18 2008, 10:21 AM

I've seen a lot of good points in favour of legalization here. They would convince me to change my mind if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a dreadfully obstinate person.

Posted by: Kiln Apr 19 2008, 01:18 AM

I don't appreciate being patronized when providing research information.


Actually Alex is right, most studies believe quite the opposite of your statement when comparing marijuanna and tobacco, even U.S. morality statistics issued by the government disagree with you. I can't see why they would lie considering it isn't legal in the united states. Although this statistic was from 1987 it is believed to be accurate.


Related links- http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/10.things.to.know.about.mj
http://www.webmd.com/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill

Posted by: Badda-Tish Jan 16 2009, 08:08 PM

oh hell yea!

Posted by: bbqplatypus Jan 19 2009, 07:25 AM

I honestly don't care about the issue all that much. I'm not against the legalization of marijuana, because it's not really all THAT harmful - after all, alcohol and tobacco are arguably more dangerous. However, I am not an advocate for it, either, because 1) I don't care, and 2) I don't use myself because I don't personally think it's a good idea to take mind-altering substances for recreational use. (At least, it isn't for me - I have a bad family history of addiction).

In any case, I think there are far more important issues facing my country today.

Posted by: Roshambo Jan 19 2009, 11:41 PM

I see no reason for it not to be.

People who are anti-legalisation seem to be of the mindset that it'll become rampant. That they won't be able to do anything about people driving high, coming into work baked, drug dealers will take over the streets even in the daytime...

No, it won't be like that. If it's restricted sensibly, just like any other drug; just like alcohol, (hell, you could restrict it even MORE than alcohol if you please) there shouldn't be any problems.

The various studies I've run across (not that I actively sought them out, so mebbe I'm behind the times), it is no more dangerous than cigarettes. Well sure; I've never seen a filtered joint, but you know what I mean. It's no heroin or cocaine.

Then again there are six pages of thread here, so maybe I'm in above my head... >_>

Posted by: Daedroth Mar 5 2009, 07:24 PM

Meh, I don't care anymore.

Posted by: Illydoor Mar 5 2009, 09:54 PM

Refraining from making some immature comment about 'smoking the budwah', I'll say that I don't think it should really be legalised. The arguments that are pro-legalisation are good, but it still is a drug. If it were to be legalised, strong restrictions would have to be enforced and with all the hubbub about alcohol and cigarettes anyway, is it really worth the government's time and money when more important matters are at hand?

How would it sound if people in LEDC's were starving to death and living in abject poverty while Britain is spending its money on deciding whether it should allow people to get high or not?

Plus legalising it takes away the thrill.

Posted by: damiancraft_14 Mar 14 2009, 09:44 PM

im against almost everything(cigarettes,alcohol,and drugs) but i think weed should be legalized everywere just for addicts who cant stop and medical reasons. u dont want addicts losing control and freaking out right? i hope that didnt sound like i was being rude im not trying to be

Posted by: Kiln Apr 24 2009, 02:02 PM

Weed addicts freaking out?

I don't think it is quite as addictive as you think...somewhere near the same category of caffiene I believe.

Posted by: Silver Apr 24 2009, 02:11 PM

Near the addictiveness of Caffine? Dear lord, we're all doomed.

This is with the supposition that the rest of the world meets Tim Hortons.

Posted by: Kiln Apr 24 2009, 02:19 PM

You never hear of people selling their belongings to buy more coffee. Its not a dangerous addiction, and most people can miss a cup and be completely fine.

Posted by: drakkenfan Jul 8 2009, 05:01 AM

It should be legal, but only for medical purposes.

Posted by: Illydoor Jul 8 2009, 08:03 AM

What medical purpose would marijuana have though?

Posted by: Dantrag Jul 8 2009, 10:56 AM

It is used to help people with painful glaucoma.

It is also prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy. Help counter the pain, the stomach problems, and the loss of appetite that commonly goes with chemo.

Posted by: Illydoor Jul 8 2009, 03:56 PM

Ah okay. I still think the most important thing here is the 'moral' issue of legalising it. We should be working out how to save the planet and its plants, not smoke them.

Posted by: Nottheking Jul 10 2009, 08:36 AM

Well, I'm a bit of a case: I'm a serious teetotaller, meaning that I don't partake in even alcohol, let alone tobacco, and any recreational drugs. And opinion-wise, I'll admit to feeling a little giddy over any prospect of a second, better-enforced Prohibition. So in fact, I honestly don't approve of the use of marijuana for recreation. As a medicine, I can see it as potentially useful, just like how Morphine is used. However, smoking it isn't exactly the most effective means of it as a medication.

Of course, if it's "legalized," then it can be regulated and taxed... And apparently nothing dissuades a behavior quite like having to pay taxes on it... So I could favor legalization if it can be shown that it'd actually result in less use.

At any rate, figures that claim that smoking Marijuana is harmless is utter BS; regardless of the leaf, you're still burning something, (PLUS chemical-bleached paper) and inhaling the smoke. While Marijuana growers don't use the Polonium-210-laden fertilizer most tobacco farmers do, it still gets pollutants from the soil and air. And it's those pollutants that cause the lung damage in tobacco smoking, which doesn't go away just because you switched the species of plant. And as a drug, while it is less harmful than MOST others, it still harmful, with the potential to cause lasting damage; its use has been linked to increases in mental disorders, and potential lasting mental capacity reduction. And while its boosters often tout its low/lack of physical addiction, they neglect to mention that it is a rather potently addictive psychologically, beyond that of Ecstacy and LSD, and more on a par with Amphetamines and Alcohol. So sure, while it's no Heroin or Cocaine, that doesn't exactly say much.

Posted by: Dantrag Jul 10 2009, 03:57 PM

I just don't understand how its even a legal issue. (I guess you should understand when you read this that I believe in the smallest possible government)

If I wanted to go out, grow daisies, pick them, and smoke them, nobody would care. If I did the same with marijuana, I could go to jail for god knows how long.

As far as marijuana being harmful: of course, you're inhaling smoke so there's lung damage there. But daisy smoke would hurt my lungs too: should the government ban daisies for the sake of the daisy-smoker's lung? Absolutely not. That kind of thing shouldn't be included in the powers of government.

And 'psychologically addictive'? That means it's addictive like video games are; you don't have a physical urge to keep on playing all night, you simply enjoy it and choose to even though you have work early in the morning. And again, the simple fact that people can be addicted to it doesn't mean that it should be made illegal.

From a purely political standpoint, its absolutely ridiculous. So what if it has harmful effects on the user? The user is most likely aware of it (as in tobacco) and wants to continue smoking. In a 'free' society, he or she should be able to. It isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the government's job to protect us from ourselves. You mentioned prohibition: during that time alcohol consumption in the US went WAY up and created a whole new underground criminal network. Kind of had the opposite effect than what was intended.

Also, marijuana is the number 1 cash crop here in the US. Legalization for purely economic reasons would be logical.

Posted by: Nottheking Jul 11 2009, 01:57 AM

It's quite possible that smoking daisies would, in fact, be less harmful, as their leaves and other components contain fewer various alien chemicals.


ANYTHING can be addictive or habit-forming, though some things are more addictive than others. Though the body does not develop a chemical imbalance that must be remedied by introducing the chemical in question (such as with Nicotine) the mind DOES come to EXPECT the chemical. Hence it's an addiction that is very much unlike non-chemical activities like video games; it's an actual addiction, in that a part of the body (the mind) is responding negatively to the levels of chemicals. The only difference is that physical addictions rely on the body's "base" state moving away from the "comfortable" state, mental addictions rely on the body's "comfortable" state doing the moving, rather than the other way around.


No, its job is to protect people from EACH OTHER. As much as most boosters of marijuana are loathe to admit, the stuff can, in fact, be harmful to those who aren't using it. One obvious example that pops to mind is second-hand and side-stream smoke; even for those that do things like hotbox, the smoke has to get out at SOME time. And I think you're well aware of all the press that's been given to those sort of smoke dangers from tobacco... And they apply full and well to marijuana. Similarly, regardless of the substance, if someone drives while in an altered state of mind, they're more likely to cause accidents. Logically, then, it can be considered a lie to claim that zero people have died as a result of the substance's use.


That's a BS claim, because no one's been able to get conclusive evidence one way or another; claims like that rely entirely on wild speculation that gangsters were producing fantastic amounts of alcohol. As far as the alcohol-related problems went, they actually did decrease after Prohibition was passed, but then after some time of lax enforcement, some people started to get around it. I have the impression that had it been properly enforced, it would've worked.


Even at #1, it's not that huge an industry; no single crop is terribly valuable; that "number 1" amounts to only around $35US billion, due to inflated street prices as it's all effectively smuggled. Likewise, that only counts plants; the beef industry is worth some $50US billion a year. Then once you add in pork, chicken, turkey, and all the other crops... Marijuana is practically a drop in the bucket, and even only that big because drug dealers charge what they do. Lastly, I'm not even sure if they're even going on the actual money made off of production, or are calculating the entire street value; if it's the latter, I actually would doubt that it'd be #1, once you figure in things like fast food joints for the value of stuff like wheat.

Additionally, I would think that economic size is hardly a rationale for permitting something; counterfeit goods is an industry worth hundreds of billions of US dollars, making it easily dwarf marijuana, and potentially dwarf all illicit drug trade combined. Should its potential for adding new markets mean it should be permitted? What about human trafficing, which likewise is a rapidly-growing industry estimated to be worth as much as more than $40US billion?

Posted by: Lord Revan Jul 11 2009, 02:51 AM

I can't take a definite position either way. On one hand, potentially taking the lucrative product out of the gang's hand is certainly an improvement. If a new market could provide for a lower price while still doing business, then the gangs lose their main source of income and thus their primary incentive to join.

However, I wholeheartedly support a straight-edge lifestyle. Then there's no problem to begin with. But it's unlikely that some 3 billion people in the US alone could beat the urge any easier than alcahol's prohibition. One of my childhood friends, a guy I looked up to, has dropped-out of high school, been kicked out of not only his parent's house, but his girlfriend's and others' because he's so hooked on whatever he can get his hands on (alcahol, pot, whatever). He could have gotten a baseball scholarship somewhere; he had a future. I won't accept an argument that the damage is only to the person addicted, both his parents, his little brother, their friends, and MY family know what's been done.
Making them illegal doesn't stamp them out, I understand that, but legalizing these substances and 'potentialy' eliminating the monopoly does not make up for squat. That's how I see things now.

PS: I'm not debating this, just stating my testimony.

Posted by: Dantrag Jul 11 2009, 06:13 AM

My point with the daisy wasn't to say that marijuana is harmless; it isn't. I was more questioning the idea of making a plant illegal...

Anyway, I didn't mean to give the impression that marijuana has no effect on the mind and body (because it certainly does) and should be completely unregulated, simply that the government shouldn't have the power to make the possession of a plant illegal. I think that since marijuana intoxication while driving is covered in a DUI and secondhand smoke is already being dealt with just fine with no-smoking zones. The aspect of protecting us from each other is covered already, I think.

Posted by: Black Hand Jul 11 2009, 11:33 AM

We should trust the politicians who tell us that Marijuana is bad for us. After all they are the same guys who made America the only developed nation in the world to not have Universal Health Care, advertise [insertprescriptionnamehere] directly to the consumer: (Do you wake up in the morning? Do you have trouble concentrating when something bores you? Talk to your doctor about Plomoxtriphidan. Side effects can include mild nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, blindness, and in some rare cases, an excruciatingly slow and painful death.)

These are the same guys who ban public smoking for 'fresh air' and peoples health, but cut back on public transportation and stall on clean air initiatives for the gas companies.

Lets try a little experiment: We take two rooms of equal size, seal them both air-tight. I'll smoke one ciggarette in one and stay ten minutes in there. Now we'll set up a politician in the other room with a running car, and he has to stay there for ten minutes.

According to his logic, he'll be the one walking away alive.

THINK, PEOPLE!!!!

Posted by: milanius Jul 12 2009, 01:39 AM

Some nice points here have been raised.

Most countries don't, for example, classify alcohol as illegal - we tax it, we sell it, but it is still illegal for minors and it is illegal for drivers. In the same way anyone normal, sane and responsible wouldn't gulp down a bottle of hard liquor or 100mg of diazepam and then go for a drive, no one sane and responsible should smoke pot and then drive. It is common sense and there is no philosophy about it.

On the other hand, if used responsible, marijuana should be available to adults if they wish to smoke it. Let us not be hypocrites, there are 8, 10, 12-year olds here and there who smoke tobacco and I presume there are also 8-year olds who drink, 10-year olds who smoke pot, 12-year olds who practice unprotected sex and so on. So maybe some things aren't right in my mind or someone else's, but that is where we stop to use common sense. If my lungs and brain cells are the only thing that may be harmed in the process, it should be my right and freedom to smoke pot - because it should be my right to live my life as I see fit as long as I am not harming anyone with my actions. My family probably doesn't think that way, but then again I don't like 12-year olds who get more nookie than I do.

Posted by: Nottheking Jul 12 2009, 06:10 AM

Most state DUI laws, as I recall, only cover alcohol; it technically isn't illegal to drive while under the influence of illegal drugs; the illegal part is simply having them. They would need to be broadly expanded. And most no-smoking zones are woefuly inadequeate. (as someone whose lungs react very violently to such smoke, I can attest to this)


You're mixing things up. I'd point out that Marijuana is illegal in NUMEROUS countries that have universal health care. In fact, every single industrialized country that has universal health care, happens to be a country where marijuana is illegal. It's just that in some, like Canada and the ever-cited Netherlands, the laws aren't fully enforced. Basically, it's about the same as US Prohibition; the drugs aren't legal, it's just the law regime is incredibly poor at stopping them.

Also, politicians don't advertise medicines. And said advertisements occur outside of the USA. Again, actually look at what other countries are like before you go with the "bash America" angle.


Many states dictate pretty stringent requirements for clean gasoline, such as demanding special "summer blends" that will reduce the ability for smog to form, so as to keep the air cleaner. I'd also note that a lot of pollution initiates, particularly the ones that are slow to pass, center around COē emissions, which have NOTHING to do with the breathability of air, but instead Global Warming, which is another issue ENTIRELY.

Posted by: Black Hand Jul 12 2009, 06:54 AM

Ah, so Marijuana is not legal in India? Who has universal health care? Spain? Where it is only illegal to sell it. And lets see, yep, they have UHC in Spain.

So you are wrong on that one, besides totally missing my point. The point was stating that the same people who tell you that weed is 'bad' for you are the same people who screw you over on a daily basis.



Eh, when did I say that the Politicians did? I said they made it legal. Most other countries, France for example, it is not legal to advertise prescription medicine Direct to Consumer. I stated that with a fore-knowledge and comparing our laws to other countries. Nor do they occur in NUMEROUS countries, they occur in America and very few others.

Also, I live in America, have my entire life.

Please, fact check before attempting to debate.



Right, and those measures are ineffective. Give me a couple of days, and I'll show a picture of me holding a recent newspaper, and the grey dome of that healthy, regulated, smog over my city. And in comparison shots from twenty years ago, you'll see that little has changed.

CO2 emissions may be another seperate issue, but they still stem from a common source: Corrupt Politicians, propoganda, and the sheeple who eat anything that is fed to them.

Nice try, but you are Not the King of Debate. I on the other hand, am quite the master debater, and a cunning linguist. I could just lie around master debating all day.

Posted by: 1234king Jul 12 2009, 12:08 PM

If they legalise it then drug dealers are gonna lose business

Posted by: milanius Jul 12 2009, 12:35 PM

Life is tough, recession & all. Oh, well.

Posted by: Black Hand Jul 12 2009, 07:54 PM

Thats a bad thing? I might be liberal in my views, but drug dealers and cartels are still some of the most ruthless evil people on the planet, the only true way to kill a drug dealer is to cut off his money supply.

Posted by: humanafterall Jul 13 2009, 03:29 PM

That's a very stupid thing to say, (assuming you are serious). Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, even aspirin and laxatives are drugs.

If you are trying to argue that something should be illegal based on the fact that it is a "drug" or contains one then you've a very weak argument.

If all "drugs" were made illegal, our hospitals and pharmacies would have a tough time treating patients, all they'd have left would be knives and leeches.

Posted by: minque Jul 13 2009, 09:38 PM

Oh aye my friend, you certainly are! ( Sorry could't resist.)


Drugs are bad for you...legalized or not...

Posted by: Alexander Jul 13 2009, 10:55 PM

True, however when given the choice between legalizing it and thus being able to control it, and keeping it illegal (like in a country such as America) I'd go for the first choice every time.

Posted by: milanius Jul 13 2009, 11:34 PM

You don't know him very well, do you?
There we go, some level-headed thinking.

Posted by: Kiln Jul 14 2009, 05:07 AM

Honestly, there are probably only three real reasons people would be against legalisation of marijuana.

1. They are ignorant. Ignorance and stupidity are different, these people aren't dumb, just uninformed. They don't know about marijuana, just that its illegal and that all illegal things have to be bad for a reason.

2. They were raised in a place where it is illegal. People who were raised being told that marijuana is a drug and that drugs are completely unacceptable within society are usually fanatically against legalisation of it. Whereas people from countries that regulate its sales know that its no more dangerous than alcohol, in fact some might argue that alcohol is much more dangerous.

3. They are scared. They think that legalising marijuana would cause gangs to grow or everyone to become a junkie. They don't really understand that marijuana is one of the least dangerous intoxicants on the planet and that it isn't nearly as habit forming as any of the other illegal drugs. They worry that it will become rampant, causing accidents and other serious problems.

I believe that if it were legalised and regulated by the government, it would be no more a cause of problems than alcohol. It would not cause more gang related sales because if people can get it from a legal source they'll no longer have to rely on these gang members. All I'm trying to get across is that its not as big a deal as people think and if you were born in a place that allows people to use it, you wouldn't think it should be illegal.

Posted by: Lord Revan Jul 14 2009, 11:07 PM

Really, it doesn't change much if it's legal or not. If the government can't regulate underground trafficking when it's illegal, how are they supposed to regulate it when it is? While making it legal might curb the lucrative nature of the trade, whether the parties involved with the illegal trade fall out of profit or not depends completely on whether the legitamate market can outcompete them.

Whether it's illegal or not doesn't affect the "bad" of it. Making recreational drugs legal won't heal the damage done to my friend and his family. It really doesn't matter, people will still abuse it and whatever good promised to come of it is not at all absolute.
The stance I have is you can't paint a smilie face all over legalizing it, no more than alcohol and tobacco.

Posted by: Kiln Jul 15 2009, 05:04 AM

I'm gonna go ahead and call you out on this one by saying that I seriously doubt that marijuana was solely to blame for causing problems in your friend's family. I know tons of people who smoke it that lead perfectly normal lives, didn't drop out of school, and are currently employed. Any problems he had were his own fault and blaming drugs/drinking is a cop out. Hardcore drugs are the exception IMO...and marijuana is not a harcore drug.

I feel like its alot like alcohol, its up to the person to use responsibly but it shouldn't be illegal just because there are alcoholics.

Posted by: Zalphon Mar 18 2010, 03:14 AM

No, I definitely do not. I have done research on the effects of smoking marijuana, and the effects it has on the brain are horrendus.

Posted by: Remko Mar 18 2010, 03:29 PM

Alright, lemme write a well-educated reply on this one:

Let's get one thing straight, Marihuana is a drug and is addictive in a way (more mental than physical).
HOWEVER; alcohol is far more dangerous and should be considered a hard-drug where cannabis is far more innocent (soft-drug). There has been a precedent with soccer in Belgium (think it was the European championships) where they let the UK supporters smoke some grass. Effect: No riots or at least a dramatic cut of violent encounters involving drunken UK soccer supporters. Pour alcohol in them and fights start breaking out. True story. Imo Cafeine is a hard-drug as well.

Marihuana should be enjoyed a you would a beer and not something "to get your kick from". That's stupid anyway because Cannabis is a downer pur-sang. It relaxes and puts you in a buzz, similar to drinking 10-12 beers but will dissipate far quicker than alcohol and also won't make you feel as miserable afterwards and I have never ever met someone who got agressive because of smoking a cannabis joint. Can you honestly say that about alcohol as well?
We have a saying here. It won't have the same impact because it's translated from Dutch but I am sure you will get the meaning.
We say: "A satisfied smoker (as in someone smoking pot) doesn't cause trouble."

We also have a joke about drugs, since it's rather relevant to the point I am making, I'll put it here as well

3 convicts were contemplating escape.
One said:"Ha, I'll just sniff some speed and go so fast I can run right through the wall." As said is done, convict escapes.
Second convict says:"Pff, I'll just smoke some coke and I'll be so high, I can fly over the wall. So the second convict flies over the wall."
3rd Convict takes a hit from his joint and says:" Ah hamster it, I'll escape tomorrow"

Okay, now for my opinion: I support the legalisation.
Why?
No matter if it's legal or illegal, people will use it yes? Okay, I can hear you say:"same goes for Coke, crack etc." True. I still must emphasize, cannabis is to hard-drugs what lemonade is to a 40% spirit. You can smoke a joint without craving the next one immediately. Like I said earlier, cannabis is not addictive physical. Argue if you will but it's the truth.

Consider the illegality. It will truly be a black-market good (I am talking about NL here of course because it's illegal anywhere else anyway), meaning there is no control on it whatsoever. No control on quality or even on added "spice" (I remember a time, marihuana was spiked by coke to increase potency. Yes, really!!) Minors will also be able to get it from what we call "housedealers". Since it will become difficult to obtain, it will become far more expensive, meaning it will encourage crime. Sad but true.
There is a bit of a contradiction in what I am about say but think about it and you'll see what I mean.

If it's illegal, it's easier for minors to get it but does the exact opposite for adults!
Let me try to explain:
As you may know we adults can buy cannabis in a shop. The true sense of the word shop. Minors can't.
Now, think away the shop. We have established cannabis will be harder to obtain if it's illegal.
So for adults we have gone from easy (coffeeshops) to hard (housedealers)
But for minors we've gone too nearly impossible (coffeeshops) to hard (housedealers)

What do you consider the best option from these two?

Now, where I live, we have a coffeeshop that's checked severely. You can only buy cannabis if youy have a valid pass, a pass you can only get if you can prove you are over 18, if there is any doubt, you will not get to buy any. On this pass is scanned how much you bought (you can have up to 5 gram) per day.

Besides, if they'd make it legal, the gouvernment can raise tax on it.

Basically, what I am saying is it's not as bad as a lot of people who know jackshit about it think it is. It's being judged to harshly.

Posted by: SubRosa Mar 18 2010, 04:52 PM

I am all for legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. My state already made that legal in fact. Making it legal for everyone I am ambivalent about. I am not one of those "Reefer Madness" people who think smoking pot is the most horrendous thing ever. As drugs go, it is a lightweight, to say the least. I do agree with Remko that having pot be illegal but alcohol (and for that matter cigarette smoking) legal seems like quite the double standard.

I tried pot myself when I was a teen. It was incredibly easy to get. In school, everyone knew someone who had some. It never did anything for me except make my legs feel heavy (no giggles, no munchies, or any of the other usual symptoms), so I did not really bother with it.

And as Remko also said, if it were legal than it could be taxed by the government, creating a new revenue stream. It would also make sales of Cheetos skyrocket, so I would buy stock immediately.

Posted by: Zalphon Mar 19 2010, 02:18 AM

Not a pothead, couldn't say how it feels, Subrosa.

Posted by: Liam Mar 20 2010, 05:17 AM

I support legalizing it, sure. But mainly because I live in a town full of potheads.

-Liam

Posted by: SpicyTunaRoll Jul 25 2010, 09:32 PM

Yes, but just because I think it would do more good than harm; I don't smoke it myself.

Posted by: DarkZerker Jul 26 2010, 04:33 AM

I believe that Marijuana should be legalized with very high restrictions. But let's get to a really fun fact about Marijuana. IT IS LESS ADDICTIVE THAN CIGARETTES OR CIGARS!!!

Yep! So obviously, the addiction side of things have been resolved. How about health? Well Marijuana is not exactly good for your health but here are a couple things. It's been ranked the least harmful drug. The substance is non addictive so long term use will not be an issue to most folks. What's even better is that it yields significant medical benefits. It's used for pain treatment and a very good substance for people who are suffering from muscle cramps and heart problems. It relaxes muscles and increases heart rate.

So what about moral problems? Well I don't believe in any morals other than whats blatantly obvious such as not murdering and such. So anything that won't wind me up in court, I'm fine doing. So if marijuana is legalized, I'm fine with it. Personally I will never smoke anything and the worst thing I'm doing is drinking wine so it won't affect me. But it sure will affect my friends.

In any case, how about the downsides? Well other than problems associated with smoking, there's no real long term affect. How about moral downsides? Well if you abuse the substance, you'll get your family bankrupt so there's a moral downside for ya!

Restrictions? Well but of course! Here's my ideas for restrictions

1. You MUST be 18-21(take your pick)to buy the substance. You also have to show ID such as a drivers license. Also, they must show that they have no major criminal record if they plan to buy the stuff in bulk.

2. The marijuana must only be sold in stores that the government approves. Such as smoke shops or small adult places where children will never be near. So no big stores unless it's adult only.

3. Everybody under 18-21(see regulation one)must leave the area if somebody plans on smoking marijuana. Such as if you're in a car, all under-aged people must leave the car. So pretty much one room.

4. No smoking in public places unless it's a designated smoking area. So no lighting a pouch in a restaurant. But of course, the owner of the building could designate smoke zones that are either outside or a very well ventilated area away from the main area.

5. None of these rules(except the no smoking in public area and don't smoke near minors)apply if administered by a doctor for medical purposes(just to make it fair).

6. All companies planning to sell marijuana has to be completely legit and have no criminal affiliations.

Posted by: Petra Arkanian Jan 6 2011, 07:37 PM

This seems fair. I guess I'm glad that they're not doing speed or anything. Not that weed's good, but, as you said, it's the least toxic. Or whatever.

The problem is, once those rules have been estableshed (lets say the rules DarkZerker made were voted on and won) people won't really enforce it. It happens every time.

Posted by: RagingMudcrab Jan 7 2011, 12:38 AM

I'm on the rare fringe of folks who believes all drugs should be legalized with almost zero restrictions put in place. I don't partake in these substances either, but far be it from the government to tell someone not to kill themselves.

Posted by: Petra Arkanian Jan 8 2011, 09:38 PM

If they want to kill themselves, can't they just slit their throats or something? Whatever. I've vowed never to touch drugs, weed, cigarettes, or get drunk, so I suppose it doesn't really matter to me all that much.

Posted by: stargelman Jan 11 2011, 06:44 PM

Now there's a recipe for disaster

Posted by: Olen Jan 11 2011, 11:03 PM

Interesting concept, it would be very hard to proove if someone was high (for driving say). Alcohol is easy but THC couldn't be detected on the breath so urine would be nessesary (though I've no idea how quantitive that test is) and it certinaly can't be done by the roadside (well... some people might object).

I've always held the opinion that regulation is better than prohibition in almost everything.

Posted by: mALX Jan 12 2011, 05:54 PM

It was made illegal because they couldn't tax it, and because it was giving American dollars to other countries we were possibly in the middle of issues with. Between 1937 and 1956 it was just taxed if you were caught with it. In 1956 it became a crime to have it in your possession. From there they continued increasing the mandatory time of incarceration till it moved simple possession from the jails to the state pen - in with hardened criminals.

This is where I have issues with the law, even though I don't touch the stuff - that our taxpayer dollars are being used to feed and house those in jail for possession, and that (people doing time for possession) are being incarcerated with hardened criminals, rapists and murderers.

There is the argument that our country faired very well prior to the law changes, and that since then the jails are overcrowded and the legal system dragged down to a crawl because of the sheer number of cases being shoved through are strangling the court systems.

I am not for smoking pot or against it (Although I won't allow it in my home, and for my children's sake don't encourage a close friendship with anyone who smokes it) - but I am against peaceful citizens being housed with murderers, and I am against MY taxpayer dollars being used to pay for their incarceration when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets.

Posted by: Jacki Dice Jan 12 2011, 10:11 PM

I am for it. For one second, let's get past smoking it. Hemp can be used to make paper, clothing, milk, tea, flour, oil (which can reduce symptoms of eczema), fuel, and more.

Then there's the fact that I don't feel that anyone should be telling me what I can or can't do with my body, so long as it harms no one else.

And there's the part mALX brings up. Why should someone who just wanted to smoke a bit be housed with dangerous men who committed horrible acts? It costs lots of money to keep them in prison. Not to mention how much it winds up harming them in the future, since it gives them a record.

I say legalize it and then tax the hell out of it. Take the power away from drug lords.

Posted by: Lunaia Jan 13 2011, 10:48 AM

I haven't read the previous comments - I'm sorry if I repeat something. I'd like to tell my story about this although it isn't as half as interesting as you think it will be.

In my country - the Netherlands - it is legal. People often use it and become addicted to it, especially if you live in such a big city as I use to live in. I don't know what moron made it legal in the first place. It is addicting, it is bad, and bad things can happen.


When I was younger, me and my friends went out and they all got high on that stuff. Except I didn't. The first time, I'll admit, it was hell funny to watch them all laughing and doing stuff you usually embarrass yourself for.
But the second and third time they became a bit more - excessive and started damaging things and breaking stuff. They also thought I was a ''mad, scared boring girl'' for not taking it.

Well it went out of hand. Later I didn't even bother coming along with them. Couple of weeks later I've noticed they didn't used it for going out only, and a month later some of them went in deep trouble. They often bought it from dealers (which is not legal) and became addicts.

Hell I'm happy I was smart at that time.

At one point, hell be glad it is legal. There are dealers everywhere. And when people buy it from dealers it isn't half as save as when it is bought somewhere official. Dealers can mug with it and hamster everything up so it becomes more dangerous.

Posted by: RagingMudcrab Jan 14 2011, 07:48 AM

Except it's not addicting, it's only potentially habit-forming. And bad things are less likely to happen while high than drunk. Even a lot of the supposed horrible things that happen around alcohol aren't true (such as the likelyhood of rape).

The problem with prohibition is that it simply doesn't work. People will always find a way to get a hold of the substances and making it illegal just throws more people into prison for inconsequential actions. Nanny-states in general only hurt the people, depriving them of their right to choose for themselves. And the government that has the kind of power to make SOME of your decisions for you has the power to make ALL of your decisions for you.

Posted by: mALX Jan 14 2011, 09:31 AM

QFT

Posted by: Zalphon Jan 14 2011, 05:20 PM

My best friend is a junkie. It depresses me to no end to hear him talking about how he loves to get high. I don't think tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana should be legal. But as we learned from the prohibition, that'd do no good.

Do I approve of it? Hell no. Do I think it should be legal? See answer one. Can I force him to quit? Nope. Marijuana is simply a 'gateway drug' as they're called.

When it is legal, I think the following restrictions should be in place for purchasing it.

"No selling to anyone under 21"
"No selling to anyone with a criminal record"
"No selling to anyone who is clearly intoxicated"

About no minors being around...That'd be too hard to enforce. Besides, you can't get high from being around people smoking pot.

Posted by: stargelman Jan 17 2011, 07:57 AM

They have quick-testers. The problem is that you can kiss your license goodbye if you've taken marijuana in any form in the last 2-3 months. It's the law around here.

Posted by: Olen Jan 17 2011, 10:25 PM

AFAIK they don't actually say if you're high, just whether you've taken it in the past few days (whether you should drive having taken it in the past couple of days is another issue but as it's metabolite hangs around in fat it takers a while to disappear). Also the current quick-test is pretty shoddy, there are many things which cause it to give false positives so the results wouldn't stand in court without sending it away to a lab (quite expensive and slow).

How would they know if you'd taken it in 2-3 months?

Posted by: TheOtherRick Jan 25 2011, 05:19 PM

Without having read all eight pages of this thread, I will toss in my two cents worth...

I am absolutely in favor of legalization. For several reasons.

1. Marijuana is the #1 cash source for the drug cartels that are ravaging our southern border. In the past 5 years, over 34,000 people have been killed in "The Drug War".

2. Legalization creates a tax base for for cash-strapped, impoverished southern states, of which I am currently a resident.

3. If a drug like alcohol can be legal, then a drug like marijuana can be legal with the same restrictions and penalties. (DUI for example)

Addiction does not enter the equation. Addiction is a disease that is not caused by the substance, but rather it is a disorder within the person that is an addict.

With all of that said, legalization has to take place on the Federal level, not state by state. Besides all of the state laws against marijuana, a Federal law prohibits the sale and use of marijuana.

Posted by: mirocu Apr 18 2013, 09:15 AM

I donīt know, but lots of other stuff thatīs really bad for you is allowed. Like sugar. And coffee. And cigarettes. And alcohol. And gene-manipulated food. And pharmaceutical drugs with tons of side-effects. And vaccination shots to kids way too young. Not to mention the stuff they spray out of planes which we later breathe in.

Whatīs so bad with marijuana?

Posted by: Colonel Mustard Apr 18 2013, 09:38 AM

People are gonna smoke it however illegal you make it and however harsh you make the penalties. Might as well make it legal, taxable and get some money off it.

Posted by: mirocu Apr 18 2013, 09:46 AM

Precisely.

Posted by: Colonel Mustard Apr 18 2013, 09:54 AM

Greedy cynicism, hooray!

Posted by: mirocu Apr 18 2013, 10:03 AM

How the world works, man

Posted by: SubRosa Apr 18 2013, 05:11 PM

Capitalism FTW!

Posted by: Darkness Eternal May 2 2013, 11:07 PM

Edited. You know what. I won't derail the thread here.

I don't smoke, nor am I a heavy drinker. As long as people do it in their homes and not in public, I'm fine.

Posted by: Colonel Mustard May 2 2013, 11:17 PM

Don't leave yourself that incredibly open for me. There are so many easy as hell insults I could use there. So tempting ways to hurt your feels and undermine your sense of self-worth, but all with the inherent risk of mod wrath. Don't...don't do that to me, dammit, that's just cruel...

Posted by: Darkness Eternal May 2 2013, 11:25 PM

Heh. I edited my post before you posted. Honestly, in the bottom of my heart, that right there was sarcasm. Just a way of expressing how I feel about marijuana and how countless young folks around my age use it. If something like that is legal, then why not make everything else?

Apologies if you did not get the joke. A "/sarcasm" would be in order right about now. But instead of outright insulting me or undermining my self-worth if I actually desired prostitution to be legal, why not debate it as mature, open-minded individuals? Or perhaps I should counter that with my charming point of view on different topics?

Posted by: Colonel Mustard May 2 2013, 11:35 PM

Yeah, that comment wasn't from any sense of moral outrage but because cheap shots against others are the only means through which I derive a sense of self worth. Mine is a miserable and spiteful lot.

But in all seriousness, it should probably be made legal if, for no other reason, to provide protection to the workers in the sex industry, who are probably some of the most vulnerable peoplle in the modern world. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Posted by: Darkness Eternal May 2 2013, 11:37 PM

Then let us make that thread, shall we?

Posted by: Elisabeth Hollow May 2 2013, 11:40 PM

No, just fight. Make it interesting XD

Posted by: Darkness Eternal May 2 2013, 11:42 PM

This isn't a children's thread, m'am!

Posted by: Elisabeth Hollow May 2 2013, 11:44 PM

PBBBBBBBBTH.

Posted by: ThatSkyrimGuy May 4 2013, 03:07 AM

I just voted in the poll and it seems I am with the majority by a margin of almost 2 to 1. It only makes sense. Alcohol has been legal for ages and it can arguably cause more damage to the human body than pot. Emphasis on 'arguably'. The tax revenue available to poor states that provide a good growing climate (Alabama and Mississippi for example) could be an immense boon to their economies. Of course, these are Bible belt states that would probably never legalize it on a state level.

Posted by: Kiln May 5 2013, 05:01 AM

Lots of people are getting killed every day because it is illegal. Legalization and taxation will increase lots of revenue for the states and feds. It will also decrease the amount of people who are locked up per year for drug related offenses drastically, in the United States at least.

In the USA, we're supporting lots of people in prison because of minor drug offenses. Aside from "moral" reasons, I just don't get why it is illegal.

Just so you guys know, yes I've tried it, no I didn't like it, and I still think it is ridiculous that it is illegal.

Posted by: Darkness Eternal Jul 22 2013, 01:40 AM

Salvia Divinorum should be legal. It is in few states but many including my state, its illegal. It was used by Mazatec shamans in ceremonies in spirit healing and astral projection.

It became a bit popular, so much so that its being banned many places because people don't know how to use it properly.

The effects may include:
- Uncontrollable laughter
- Increase of body temperature
- Increase sweating and tear production
- Increase heart rate
- Loss of body control
- Involuntary movements
- Merging with or becoming objects
- Perception of being in several locations at once
- A powerful and mystical visions
- Confusion, irritability, psychosis
- Fear, terror, panic

The effects are seen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70jqDKiOKo4.

Posted by: mALX Jul 22 2013, 01:46 AM

Sounds like the same results one gets from reading my story, but so far my story hasn't been banned as illegal, lol.

Posted by: Darkness Eternal Jul 22 2013, 01:50 AM

You have to PM me how I can have powerful and mystical visions and go into other realms/dimensions legally

Posted by: Black Hand Jul 22 2013, 02:25 AM

Fact: Marijuana kills teh brain cells!

*Aide whispers in ear*

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, it turns out that that is completely false, and was spread during the Reagan Administration to manipulate the public into the 'Just Say No!' campaign.

The Government Agency commissioned to make the false report admitted their 'error' stating further that there is no evidence to support that the chemicals found in Marijuana inflict any degradation on any organs or cells whatsoever...damn.

Fact: Marijuana causes cancer!

"Aide whispers in ear*

OH! Um, it would appear that I am mistaken once more. *Smoking* marijuana produces carcinogens the same as inhaling any other burning substance would. But if you try the several other non-flammable methods available, marijuana actually inhibits the growth of tumors....seriously?!

Fact:Marijuana is ADDICTIVE!

*Aide whispers in ear*

Oh, I see. Sorry, the euphoria associated with the 'high' of marijuana could be 'psychologically addictive' in some individuals, but otherwise there is nothing to suggest that there is a physical dependency such as receptors in the brain or increased hormonal levels and the like associated with perfectly legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Alcoholism was once so rampant in america in the late 1800's doctors prescribed morphine over drinking despite being addictive as well as a drunk man got into fights and felt virtually no pain, and even led up to the failed experiment of prohibition, virtually creating organized crime as we know it.

There has never been a single case of anyone suffering physical withdrawals, or death from trying to stop smoking weed.

Fact:There are people in jail doing longer stints than sexual predators, murderers, and rapists, for simply having more than an ounce of marijuana on them!

*Looks at aide, the aide just shrugs shaking his head.*

Wait, seriously?! There is no medical, moral, or otherwise good reason to have this as anything more than a regulated substance, similar if not identical to the way we regulate alcohol and there are people who will rot in jail longer than a child molester because of this?!

.....I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


Authors Note: I do not smoke weed. I did back in '99-'01. Havent had it since, and I am routinely drug-tested at work under the Federal Government regulations. I work in the medical field, and we used too take people to Chemotherapy. The difference in the patients that chose to partake and the ones who did not, were night and day.

That being said, I would say 9 out of 10 Doctors I've spoken with say that there is no medical compunction that would lead to them recommending that Marijuana being outright banned, were it hypothetically legal.

They gave the caveat that they do not recommend that people without a good reason such as cancer patients start it's use either. Though they admitted, that there wasn't necessarily a reason to restrict that personal choice either.

Black Hand is a self-absorbed, opinionated, weirdo who thinks he has all the answers. If you were offended by the preceding message, send $19.95 to the address at the end of this message.

Posted by: mirocu Jul 22 2013, 11:01 AM

As I was indeed not at all offended but rather supportive to the text preceeding this, Iīll just keep my 19.95.

Posted by: mALX Jul 22 2013, 11:12 AM

However, if you agree with the above; please draw an outline of your housekey, and send it (care of mALX) along with the below list:

1. Your daily schedule
2. Your computer (include stats in detail)
3. Your PC game compilation
4. Anywhere in your home you may keep "treasures." If they are in a locked safe, please include the combination

Posted by: mirocu Jul 22 2013, 11:17 AM

-mirocu goes to the mailbox with a letter addressed to mALX-

Posted by: mALX Jul 22 2013, 11:24 AM

WOO HOO! I love getting mail!