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.

This post has been edited by Ibis: Apr 29 2006, 11:09 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?

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Foster: Apr 29 2006, 11:37 PM

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 .

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 : /

Overdose? How's that work with marihuana?

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.

This post has been edited by HyPN0: May 2 2006, 11:14 AM

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

[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.

This post has been edited by HyPN0: Apr 30 2006, 09:06 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.

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

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

OK OK....you probably don´t die of smoking too many cigarrettes on one time but you certainly feel........baaaaaad.....ick! (believe me....I´ve tried!)

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.

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?

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.....

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

This post has been edited by Zarrexaij: Jun 23 2007, 12:38 AM