Do you support marijuana legalisation? Options

[HyPN0]

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

[Foster]

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.

[DoomedOne]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Foster]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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