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?

This post has been edited by Nottheking: Jul 11 2009, 02:03 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.

This post has been edited by Lord Revan: Jul 11 2009, 02:52 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.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Jul 11 2009, 06:14 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!!!!

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.

This post has been edited by milanius: Jul 12 2009, 01:42 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 CO² emissions, which have NOTHING to do with the breathability of air, but instead Global Warming, which is another issue ENTIRELY.

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.

If they legalise it then drug dealers are gonna lose business

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

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.

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.

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


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

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.

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

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.

This post has been edited by Kiln: Jul 14 2009, 05:07 AM

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Kiln: Jul 15 2009, 05:05 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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Mar 20 2010, 01:04 AM