A debate popped up in Yankyal's pet peeve topic about weed. Now I don't want this to turn into a stoner's topic talking about how much you smoke in a day or anything. This is more about governmental issues surrounding weed or facts or studies or whatnot.
If it gets too out of hand I'll have a mod close this.
Quote from: Scotty on November 03, 2010, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: Yankyal on November 03, 2010, 05:40:17 PM
Less marijuana talk, more pet peeves:
Here's an interesting question... What benefits come from legalizing pot? There's no conclusive studies (... legitimate... so far as I know) where it is scientifically proven to help, so why introduce a new narcotic to the states? You can even throw in references to prop 19 if you need to scrape.
That only thing I can think of that benefits from legalizing pot is the government. Because then they could mass produce weed like they do with tobacco. And I imagine it would probably be cheaper for people to buy. But in that case, the current people who grow and sell weed would be out a ton of money. So honestly, I don't see why people want weed to be legalized.
Also, I have no idea what prop 19 is, I saw statuses about it on facebook and apparently it didn't pass? I suppose I can google it. lol.
Quote from: DarkTrinity on November 03, 2010, 08:26:48 PMBecause then they could mass produce weed like they do with tobacco. And I imagine it would probably be cheaper for people to buy.
Negative.
I would expect the government to tax the living erection out of pot. I would hope they would. The best part is, all those who claim it ain't addicting are gonna look like idiots when they're spending out the ass to get it anyways.
Quote from: DarkTrinity on November 03, 2010, 08:26:48 PMBut in that case, the current people who grow and sell weed would be out a ton of money.
Negative.
The largest culprits of illegally trafficking the ganja in California is far and wide the Mexican drug cartel. Weed is but a smidgen of their profits, whereas a lot of their hardcore funding comes from more extreme narcotics (heroine, cocaine, etc...). Losing pot sure as shit ain't gonna stop the drug trafficking problem.
one reason i can think up of legalizing weed is that the government could tax the hell out of it too make money to get themselves out of debt and pot heads could be legal. there are other reason and that is that it can be used for many things ranging from rope, paper, bio fuel, hell even clothing so its not all about smoking it. well atleast different parts of the plant can. frankly i dont see weed as such a big deal as alot of people do, that doesnt mean i support drug use, its just i dont see weed as bad as some make it out to be. infact some prescribed drugs in my opinion are worse then weed. now please know i have never used any illegal drugs and i dont smoke or drink so this has nothing to do with bias just simple opinion. thats my 2 cents
Let me start by saying that I don't smoke weed, or anything for that matter. Also, I don't typically like hanging out with people who are stoned all the time. But that being said, I still think it would probably be a good call to legalize it. It really isn't even as bad or as dangerous as alcohol, and when you consider the fact that a HUGE portion of the people in jail in the US are in for drug related crimes, it would save a hell of a lot of money to stop paying to jail people for dumb shit like soft-core drugs. I forget the exact number, but it cost a ridiculous amount of money to keep a prisoner in jail each year, and all that money comes from taxes on the rest of us. I don't mind the idea of higher taxes if it is actually benefiting people, but paying for pot-heads/dealers seems kind of ridiculous. Honestly, I don't care all that much either way, but seeing as that is the only real way that this issue effects me, I'd have to go with just legalizing it.
Again though Venuse, California's economy is utter poo right now. Taxing pot, while having it remain reasonable, is barely going to dent the economy (regardless of state/economy). There aren't that many pot heads out there. Besides, compare the expected revenue of $1.4 Billion dollars to the surprise $400 billion Wall Street is getting as of this afternoon.
I love playing Devil's advocate.
First off, I don't smoke anything, drink, or socialize with anyone who does. The person who does things like that generally conflicts with me. I don't really have an issue with marijuana, but the question is where will it end? I had some family over recently, and the drug cartel was the main topic, who "make the Al-Qaeda look like child's play." This is something we definitely don't want in our country, and is probably something we'll end up fixing for Mexico anyways. Yeah, weed may be a minor bit of their exports, international now, but if we give them an inch they're likely to take the mile.
~Aqua
Reasons to legalize weed:
-Less minors will be able to obtain it (Many kids say it's easier to get pot than alcohol and cigs. Why? Because dealers don't give a crap how old you are)
-It'll put tons of drug dealers out of business (there's a reason why dealers voted against prop 19).
-The government will stop wasting trillions on kicking in doors and arresting innocent people, and start taxing it (much of that money can go towards drug treatment programs)
-It can be regulated by the government, which means increased enforcement against smoking and driving as well as giving weed to minors.
-Price will go way down on it. Quantity will go way up, and people will have the ability to grow their own.
-No more dangerously laced weed.
-Prohibition does not work anyway. Drug busts have not deterred anything.
-Less money will go to crime rings.
-Hemp will be recognized as a valuable material.
-Marijuana is not a lethal drug, and is much safer than substances like alcohol and tobacco.
-Marijuana has many medical values.
Also, everyone needs to watch The Union (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#) naow.
And here's my response to the governments "facts" about the dangers of weed
QuoteQuote from: Scotty on November 03, 2010, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlLong-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2?3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.
Of course marijuana has withdrawal effects. So does coffee, alcohol, fast food, and cigarettes, all of which are completely legal. In fact, caffeine has been known to cause around 7,000 deaths per year, which is 7,000 more deaths than what's attributed to marijuana. What's important is the severity of the withdrawal, and there are multitudes of studies that show alcohol is a much more addictive substance with a much more severe withdrawal.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28)
QuoteQuote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlHigh doses of marijuana can produce an acute psychotic reaction; in addition, use of the drug may trigger the onset or relapse of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals.
Quote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlA number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. Some of these studies have shown age at first use to be a factor, where early use is a marker of vulnerability to later problems. However, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.
Yep, inconclusive results must mean it's not bad for you right?
Albeit with this one, and others, it is hard to gauge effects since many of the rockers of ganj that they studied also consumed various other substances (ie drugs ie cigarettes, alcohol, etc...).
It's funny, with how strongly the government tries to make marijuana out to be an evil, dangerous, and addictive substance, that they would post inconclusive results on their website. The website http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000228 (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000228) takes a large amount of studies conducted by different universities, and concludes the following: "The psychological effects of cannabinoids, such as anxiety reduction, sedation, and euphoria, can influence their potential therapeutic value.
Those effects are potentially undesirable in some patients and situations and beneficial in others. In addition, psychological effects can complicate the interpretation of other aspects of the drug's effect."
It's not a black and white issue at all. Some studies on the website suggest that it can trigger mood disorders, while other studies conducted suggest that it can help them. Regardless, this begets the fact that alcohol is also the cause of many mood disorders, with apparently no studies suggesting that it can help any of these disorders.
QuoteEffects on the heart:
Quote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlMarijuana increases heart rate by 20?100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.
Quote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlThis risk may be greater in aging populations or those with cardiac vulnerabilities.
You know what also increases the heart rate to that extent? Exercise. And just like when exercising, it only has the possibility of triggering heart attacks in people who have problems with their heart. Other culprits of this include alcohol and caffeine. Marijuana is also known to lower blood pressure.
Quote
Effects on the lungs:
Quote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlNumerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50?70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs? exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
Quote from: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.htmlNonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
I guess no one has ever heard of a vaporizer. It filters all of the smoke, and allows you to suck up pure THC. Using one completely negates the bad side effects of letting smoke enter your lungs. Either way, marijuana does not contain arsenic, carbon monoxide, ammonia, butane, nicotine, and it doesn't increase your blood pressure or cause lung cancer, all of which cigarettes do. Marijuana users also generally do not chain smoke, and it's not physically addictive like tobacco.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Cigarettes-vs-Marijuana (http://hubpages.com/hub/Cigarettes-vs-Marijuana)
http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/ (http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/)
Quote
Oh, and throw out that mamsy pamsy argument about how this is off a .gov website. Go ahead. Not like they aren't going to reference their own studies when they determine the legality of it. That would just make sense wouldn't it?
Hahaha, are you talking about the same government that used monkeys to see if weed killed brain cells by putting a gas mask on their face and pumping in massive amounts of marijuana smoke for 30 days? The determined cause of death was... Wait for it... lack of oxygen. Then, as proof that marijuana killed brain cells, they tested the monkeys after they were dead. That government, right?
http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/15/ECH15_03.HTM (http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/15/ECH15_03.HTM)
Quote from: Aqua on November 03, 2010, 10:37:15 PM
First off, I don't smoke anything, drink, or socialize with anyone who does. The person who does things like that generally conflicts with me. I don't really have an issue with marijuana, but the question is where will it end? I had some family over recently, and the drug cartel was the main topic, who "make the Al-Qaeda look like child's play." This is something we definitely don't want in our country, and is probably something we'll end up fixing for Mexico anyways. Yeah, weed may be a minor bit of their exports, international now, but if we give them an inch they're likely to take the mile.
~Aqua
If you don't want the drug cartel around anymore, we should legalize all drugs. I'm actually not joking, I think it's a great idea. Treat addiction as an illness, not a crime, and get people help who need it instead of locking up millions of people. Not only that, but violence over drugs will be completely muted.
Quote from: Scotty on November 03, 2010, 09:52:16 PM
There aren't that many pot heads out there.
Wrong sir. Dead wrong.
Quote from: Scotty on November 03, 2010, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: DarkTrinity on November 03, 2010, 08:26:48 PMBecause then they could mass produce weed like they do with tobacco. And I imagine it would probably be cheaper for people to buy.
Negative.
I would expect the government to tax the living erection out of pot. I would hope they would. The best part is, all those who claim it ain't addicting are gonna look like idiots when they're spending out the ass to get it anyways.
Your wrong on that one too. Right now weed runs at about $300 to 400$ per ounce, because black market suppliers need to be compensated. If it's legal, an ounce of weed could go down to about 40$, and estimations for tax revenues are 50$ per ounce. Still far less than what it's going for now.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/proposition-19-marijuana-costs.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/proposition-19-marijuana-costs.html)
I think someone needs to improve on their devils advocacy skills.
Dude, you are so ignorant. You're doing exactly what I see every argumentative liberal do. You take a very complicated issue, oversimplify it, thus creating ineffective and dangerous oversimplified solutions to a problem that roots so much deeper than you're comprehending.
I can't possibly cover all this in one post, so I'll get as much as I can in the next several minutes:
Quote-Less minors will be able to obtain it (Many kids say it's easier to get pot than alcohol and cigs. Why? Because dealers don't give a crap how old you are)
-It'll put tons of drug dealers out of business (there's a reason why dealers voted against prop 19).
These two sort of go hand in hand. Kids are still gonna get it, if not more than ever. Hello, how many people do you know that smoke now started mid-teens? Wanna know how they did it? Because people can buy it for them, or they can steal it for free off their parents, or however kids get cigarettes now a days, the same effect will happen with pot.
Guess what, pot ain't that great of a market when you look at all the different narcotics. Pot is the gateway drug for drug dealers. I guarantee any kingping would rather rake in the dough off coke and heroine rather than pot. As soon as pot gets legalized, oh well, now they can concentrate on the heavier hitting drugs. You eliminate a very small problem for them, and possibly create larger problems, if not just leave it at a stalemate and they continue on as though it was yesterday, only with less or cheaper pot sales. In no way are dealers gonna be hindered by this. They'll still sell. Hell, how many people sell smokes to kids for 10 (of daddy's) bucks a pack? Think about it.
QuoteThe government will stop wasting trillions on kicking in doors and arresting innocent people, and start taxing it (much of that money can go towards drug treatment programs)
I won't argue this one, I almost agree with it.
QuoteIt can be regulated by the government, which means increased enforcement against smoking and driving as well as giving weed to minors.
How is arresting a person who is under the influence illegally any different than arresting a person who is legally under the influence? If he's falling asleep behind the wheel or being a danger to everyone else on the road, the cops pull him over and charge him appropriately as per however the law stands regardless. If anything, this door opens the other way and makes it that much easier to facilitate hazardous driving. Again, with the kids, read above.
QuotePrice will go way down on it. Quantity will go way up, and people will have the ability to grow their own.
You're speculating on how it will get legalized, stop it, this proves nothing, this is how you want it to happen, which is definitely not how California was going to make it happen.
QuoteNo more dangerously laced weed.
Well I'm glad that after prohibition ended in 1933, there hasn't been a single case of someone slipping a mickey in an alcoholic drink ever since... </sarcasm>
QuoteProhibition does not work anyway. Drug busts have not deterred anything.
Well that's a rather bold statement. Wasn't it you that said that only fools deal in absolutes? In the grand scheme, no, it may not have, but I sure as hell would say that putting Gonzales behind bars sort of deterred him from further distributing whilst in.
QuoteLess money will go to crime rings.
Nickels and dimes. If you want to see a
true case of busting rings by wiping out drug funds, go to the middle east and watch as they crop dust the opium fields. You seem to have this misconception that pot is bringing in SOOOO much money. Dude, it's the most common illegal narcotic being used in the states, whereas other more extreme narcotics arent. Wanna know why? Heroine is hella more expensive.
QuoteHemp will be recognized as a valuable material.
Apparently you've never been waterboarded with a burlap sack over your head, or any clothing made of burlap, because hemp ain't far off. What's next, your man thong collection is replaced with the hairs of a horse's mane? The idea of wearing hemp as an article of clothing is definitely in my top three of favorite BS things I hear in pot arguments. You can fly your colors, in all your glory in discomfort, I'll laugh at your expense.
QuoteMarijuana is not a lethal drug, and is much safer than substances like alcohol and tobacco.
My all time favorite excuse. Yes, lets introduce another narcotic to the overall depleting health of America, a country where hundreds of thousands dream of day where there aren't substances such as alcohol and cigarettes in this world (some of which are probably reading this, you know who you are, and I truly envy your mindset, truly). "Oh, but it doesn't do you any harm smoking it." Yeah... OK... keep referencing your "How to learn ignorance in 24 hours" book. It's a narcotic.
QuoteMarijuana has many medical values.
Do tell. Let me guess, your response is going to have the word: "Temporary" somewhere, if not multiple times, in it. Let me tell you about temporary medicinal treatments. I saw a good man get out of the Corps with nothing more than a drug addiction because they couldn't fix his leg. They just kept feeding him Vicodin until the day he got out. Would you want to have to take 500mg of Vitamin-I for the rest of your life to help ease your joint pain, or would you rather a doctor just fix the problem, instead of masking the pain. I vote for the former.
I can further summarize my entire response for all your retorts towards the governments facts. You're argument is childish. You're entire argument is based off of "Well this other thing sucks, and kills, so lets bring in another potentially harmful thing to balance it out, it's only fair!" Apparently you never listened to your parents when they told you "Two wrongs don't make a right." Your only leverage in your long and drawn out response is other narcotics.
QuoteIf you don't want the drug cartel around anymore, we should legalize all drugs. I'm actually not joking, I think it's a great idea. Treat addiction as an illness, not a crime, and get people help who need it instead of locking up millions of people. Not only that, but violence over drugs will be completely muted.
Yes, you are kidding. This entire retort is synonymous with the term disingenuous. With this kind of over-reaction, what's next, legalize murder so that the Latino gangs in Oakland, CA can legally kill off the gang problem? Yeah, that about solves it...
Okay, maybe I did cover most of it in one go...
EDIT: I would like to clarify that even despite the impression of this and previous posts, I am not all against legalizing it. What I am against is the ignorance of those who would make irrational hasty decisions without being well educated first, which really applies to anything in democracy where you have a choice.
Quote from: Scotty on November 04, 2010, 01:08:49 AM
QuoteDude, you are so ignorant. You're doing exactly what I see every argumentative liberal do. You take a very complicated issue, oversimplify it, thus creating ineffective and dangerous oversimplified solutions to a problem that roots so much deeper than you're comprehending.
Pointing out my lack of comprehension is a little bit hypocritical, don't you think? Either way, I'm going to attempt to keep name calling out of this debate.
QuoteQuote-Less minors will be able to obtain it (Many kids say it's easier to get pot than alcohol and cigs. Why? Because dealers don't give a crap how old you are)
-It'll put tons of drug dealers out of business (there's a reason why dealers voted against prop 19).
These two sort of go hand in hand. Kids are still gonna get it, if not more than ever. Hello, how many people do you know that smoke now started mid-teens? Wanna know how they did it? Because people can buy it for them, or they can steal it for free off their parents, or however kids get cigarettes now a days, the same effect will happen with pot.
Guess what, pot ain't that great of a market when you look at all the different narcotics. Pot is the gateway drug for drug dealers. I guarantee any kingping would rather rake in the dough off coke and heroine rather than pot. As soon as pot gets legalized, oh well, now they can concentrate on the heavier hitting drugs. You eliminate a very small problem for them, and possibly create larger problems, if not just leave it at a stalemate and they continue on as though it was yesterday, only with less or cheaper pot sales. In no way are dealers gonna be hindered by this. They'll still sell. Hell, how many people sell smokes to kids for 10 (of daddy's) bucks a pack? Think about it.
I never said it wouldn't still be easy to obtain pot, because we all know it will be whether it's legal or not. It definitely won't be easier to obtain though, for the same reason that it's not easier to obtain alcohol over pot when you're underage. If I want pot, I simply call up my buddy and buy a 20 sack in under 10 minutes. If I want alcohol, I need to find someone who's 21 or older, and that's not nearly as easy. Drug dealers are full time, random people over the age of 21 aren't. Either way, I'd say this is one of the least important aspects of our debate, because we can both agree that weed is pretty easy to get.
Edit: Chaos was mentioning to me that if weed got legalized, it'd be easier to obtain by minors because it can be grown. I heavily disagree with that statement on the grounds that it would be pretty difficult for minors to grow in their homes (living with their parents and all), and even if it was possible, it wouldn't be a common occurrence.
QuoteQuoteIt can be regulated by the government, which means increased enforcement against smoking and driving as well as giving weed to minors.
How is arresting a person who is under the influence illegally any different than arresting a person who is legally under the influence? If he's falling asleep behind the wheel or being a danger to everyone else on the road, the cops pull him over and charge him appropriately as per however the law stands regardless. If anything, this door opens the other way and makes it that much easier to facilitate hazardous driving. Again, with the kids, read above.
I should have clarified a little better. By "increased enforcement", I meant that cops will form better ways to test people who are under the influence of marijuana. As it stands now, cops have little to no way of proving that you are high unless they take you back to the station and do expensive drug testing, so they try to nail you for possession instead. My buddy just got a DWI, and was high at the time too, but he never even got tested for that. If Marijuana became legalized and regulated, I'm betting they'll come up with more efficient ways to catch you doing it when you're not supposed to. Of course, they might just continue what they've been doing all along, but that'd be hard to believe with all the new funding they have towards catching these people. So I guess we'll have to wait and see. As for my statement regarding giving weed to minors, I stick with it. Prop 19 imposed extremely heavy penalties on someone who even hands a joint to a minor.
QuoteQuotePrice will go way down on it. Quantity will go way up, and people will have the ability to grow their own.
You're speculating on how it will get legalized, stop it, this proves nothing, this is how you want it to happen, which is definitely not how California was going to make it happen.
How I want it to happen? Bullshit. If Prop 19 had passed, it would be completely legal to grow your own weed in your own house, which means it definitely IS how California was going to make it happen. That is, unless you're seriously trying to argue that the government would tax weed even more than black market suppliers... Uhh yeah, that makes sense. A logical estimation of government tax would be 50$ tacked on for an ounce. That's about a 130% tax. Unless the government decides to tax weed by about 1200%, it will remain cheaper if it's legal. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/proposition-19-marijuana-costs.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/proposition-19-marijuana-costs.html)
QuoteQuoteNo more dangerously laced weed.
Well I'm glad that after prohibition ended in 1933, there hasn't been a single case of someone slipping a mickey in an alcoholic drink ever since... </sarcasm>
Yeah, maybe that happens, but not when you buy it from the liquor store. The only way to buy weed right now is from drug dealers who sometimes like to lace it. Since alcohol is regulated, the places where you buy it have something called regulations. In other words, they're bound by the law, and it's probably in their best interest NOT to sell you alcohol with LSD mixed in. If there are places that legally sell weed, people who smoke it will have peace of mind knowing there's not something in it that can kill them. Understand?
QuoteQuoteProhibition does not work anyway. Drug busts have not deterred anything.
Well that's a rather bold statement. Wasn't it you that said that only fools deal in absolutes? In the grand scheme, no, it may not have, but I sure as hell would say that putting Gonzales behind bars sort of deterred him from further distributing whilst in.
I actually never said "only fools deal in absolutes". You must be thinking of Albert Einstein. Let me refrain from saying anything once more, and quote the words of a well known narcotics agent "When I arrested a rapist or robber, the community was safer. When I arrested a drug dealer, all I did was create a job opening."
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/10/former_narcotics_agent_its_time_to_call_off_the_wa.php (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/10/former_narcotics_agent_its_time_to_call_off_the_wa.php)
QuoteQuoteLess money will go to crime rings.
Nickels and dimes. If you want to see a true case of busting rings by wiping out drug funds, go to the middle east and watch as they crop dust the opium fields. You seem to have this misconception that pot is bringing in SOOOO much money. Dude, it's the most common illegal narcotic being used in the states, whereas other more extreme narcotics arent. Wanna know why? Heroine is hella more expensive.
Weed is extremely common because the demand for it is so high. A drug dealer with a small growing operation in his house can make $120,000 a year. Imagine what a legit operation could rake in. It may not rival some other drugs in terms of profit, but calling it nickels and dimes is laughably understating it's worth.
QuoteQuoteHemp will be recognized as a valuable material.
Apparently you've never been waterboarded with a burlap sack over your head, or any clothing made of burlap, because hemp ain't far off. What's next, your man thong collection is replaced with the hairs of a horse's mane? The idea of wearing hemp as an article of clothing is definitely in my top three of favorite BS things I hear in pot arguments. You can fly your colors, in all your glory in discomfort, I'll laugh at your expense.
Hemp can be used for the production of building material, composite materials, paper, jewelry, fabric, cordage, water and soil purification, weed control (not marijuana), and fuel.
QuoteQuoteMarijuana is not a lethal drug, and is much safer than substances like alcohol and tobacco.
My all time favorite excuse. Yes, lets introduce another narcotic to the overall depleting health of America, a country where hundreds of thousands dream of day where there aren't substances such as alcohol and cigarettes in this world (some of which are probably reading this, you know who you are, and I truly envy your mindset, truly). "Oh, but it doesn't do you any harm smoking it." Yeah... OK... keep referencing your "How to learn ignorance in 24 hours" book. It's a narcotic.
This is, in my opinion, the ultimate fallacy used by people against pot. Weed isn't something that will just now be "introduced" to the public if it's legalized. It's something that has been a huge part of our society for the past 30 years, and will continue to be apart of it whether it's legal or not. Recreational pot smokers simply want the peace of mind that they won't go to prison for doing something they love to do, and which hurts no one. If we made alcohol illegal right now, and started throwing everyone in jail who got caught drinking, how many problems do you think it would cause rather than solve? If marijuana became legal, we could spend some of the tax dollars we make on it to fund drug treatment programs, which could help benefit America's health.
QuoteQuoteMarijuana has many medical values.
Do tell. Let me guess, your response is going to have the word: "Temporary" somewhere, if not multiple times, in it. Let me tell you about temporary medicinal treatments. I saw a good man get out of the Corps with nothing more than a drug addiction because they couldn't fix his leg. They just kept feeding him Vicodin until the day he got out. Would you want to have to take 500mg of Vitamin-I for the rest of your life to help ease your joint pain, or would you rather a doctor just fix the problem, instead of masking the pain. I vote for the former.
So, what if doctors can't fix it? Then what? My teacher had a serious problem with his eyes called glaucoma. The only thing they found that relieved the pressure and intense pain was marijuana. Is that not using it for a medical value? This 2:14 minute clip about a man with multiple sclerosis says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEOoa6Q4Bds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEOoa6Q4Bds)
QuoteI can further summarize my entire response for all your retorts towards the governments facts. You're argument is childish. You're entire argument is based off of "Well this other thing sucks, and kills, so lets bring in another potentially harmful thing to balance it out, it's only fair!" Apparently you never listened to your parents when they told you "Two wrongs don't make a right." Your only leverage in your long and drawn out response is other narcotics.
Again, your going on the logical fallacy that we're bringing anything in that hasn't already been here for a long time. My argument has nothing to with bringing in another harmful thing simply because there are more harmful things already out there, despite your obvious misunderstanding. My whole point is that our governments efforts to stop people from using weed is futile, and these futile attempts to silence the voice of society are wasting my money and they're wasting your money. Weed makes people happy, it provides medical benefits to thousands, and it's here to stay whether it's legal or not. The government needs to get it's head out of it's ass, and start benefiting from it, as well as let people benefit from it.
QuoteQuoteIf you don't want the drug cartel around anymore, we should legalize all drugs. I'm actually not joking, I think it's a great idea. Treat addiction as an illness, not a crime, and get people help who need it instead of locking up millions of people. Not only that, but violence over drugs will be completely muted.
Yes, you are kidding. This entire retort is synonymous with the term disingenuous. With this kind of over-reaction, what's next, legalize murder so that the Latino gangs in Oakland, CA can legally kill off the gang problem? Yeah, that about solves it...
Legalizing murder and legalizing drugs are two different things. I'm of the opinion that the government should not and can not tell me what to do with my own body, but I can tell you love being whippppped.
Wow, haven't debated anything in a while. And careful who you call ignorant. After reading your replies, I can tell you've done far less research than you'd like us to believe.
Please note I haven't actually read anything you guys have said xD
I myself don't smoke it, and I can not hang out with those that do due to the fact that I feel nauseated when I can smell even the slightest hint of it. I don't know about you americans, but I know up here in British Columbia, Canada, illegal marijuana accounts for 8 Billion dollars a year of our provinces economy. On top of that, unlike what I've heard about america (where you get sent to jail for even having pot), here in Canada you get a slap on the wrist and any pot caught on you is taken. So really, while it is illegal, due to the fact it accounts for a large part of our provinces economy, they cannot get rid of it. But I doubt it will be legalized anytime soon because illegal things always cost more than legal things. Think about back in 1920 when the Prohibition stopped the sale of Alcohol and how much the price of beer sky rocketed.
edit: Forgot about this, but another reason they don't want to make it legal is due to the fact America has threatened to close its borders to BC if it was made legal.
edit 2: Also forgot to mention my mother is a drug and alcohol counselor, and in that business they call marijuana the "gateway" drug. It is addicting, and its effects do wear off when used often just like any other drug. Essentially, you will eventually become immune and have to increase dosage. Some eventually not only increase dosage but switch to harder drugs. So yeah.. just so more information for your arguments.
I fully support the legalization of weed, provided they regulate it with an age limit and a license to sell.
I smoke a lot of weed, more than your average Canadian high-schooler (which is considerably more than your average American high-schooler) so I am quite bias in this debate, however I can still see the benefits for those who do not smoke it. People who want to buy weed are able to buy weed whether or not it is legal, the only difference is that when it is purchased illegally, a crime has occurred and the profit is not taxed.
Essentially, legalization would only reduce crime rates and increase government tax income. Weed is not a physically addictive drug, your body never gains a dependence on THC and there are no withdrawal symptoms. In fact, by comparison to alcohol, weed is quite healthy.
Benefits I can think of for weed users are better quality weed (more competition amongst growers for a better product), lower price (even with a massive tax on it, it will still probably be cheaper than buying it through a chain of like 5 dealers), and not having to worry about dealing with the police.
Quote from: T-Rok on November 04, 2010, 12:12:04 PM
edit 2: Also forgot to mention my mother is a drug and alcohol counselor, and in that business they call marijuana the "gateway" drug. It is addicting, and its effects do wear off when used often just like any other drug. Essentially, you will eventually become immune and have to increase dosage. Some eventually not only increase dosage but switch to harder drugs. So yeah.. just so more information for your arguments.
Everything is a gateway to something, but that doesn't mean we make it all illegal. Masturbation is harmless, yet it's a gateway to rape, milk is good for you, but it's a gateway to alcohol, etc. Besides, I have never ever seen a pot smoker that said "wow, I'm just not getting high like I used to, lets move on to cocaine". They're completely content with where they're at.
And, as long as you don't smoke marijuana too often, the effects of it actually increase. When I first started smoking, I would barely get high. three years later, I take just one hit from a joint and I'm extremely high for up to 4 hours. Of course, your tolerance can still go up after you smoke it for a long time, but absolutely no one becomes "immune" to it. Luckily, it's easy to lower your tolerance simply by not smoking every day.
Quote from: T-Rok on November 04, 2010, 12:12:04 PM
Please note I haven't actually read anything you guys have said xD
I myself don't smoke it, and I can not hang out with those that do due to the fact that I feel nauseated when I can smell even the slightest hint of it. I don't know about you americans, but I know up here in British Columbia, Canada, illegal marijuana accounts for 8 Billion dollars a year of our provinces economy. On top of that, unlike what I've heard about america (where you get sent to jail for even having pot), here in Canada you get a slap on the wrist and any pot caught on you is taken. So really, while it is illegal, due to the fact it accounts for a large part of our provinces economy, they cannot get rid of it. But I doubt it will be legalized anytime soon because illegal things always cost more than legal things. Think about back in 1920 when the Prohibition stopped the sale of Alcohol and how much the price of beer sky rocketed.
edit: Forgot about this, but another reason they don't want to make it legal is due to the fact America has threatened to close its borders to BC if it was made legal.
edit 2: Also forgot to mention my mother is a drug and alcohol counselor, and in that business they call marijuana the "gateway" drug. It is addicting, and its effects do wear off when used often just like any other drug. Essentially, you will eventually become immune and have to increase dosage. Some eventually not only increase dosage but switch to harder drugs. So yeah.. just so more information for your arguments.
Idk what Americans you're talking about, but it's the exact same thing here. If you have marijuana on you, they just take what you have and if you have a bowl on you, they'll smash it. Unless you are caught with a substantial amount(hinting you might possibly be dealing it), then they will take you in. But I'm pretty sure it has to be a certain weight for them to bring you in.
Quote
QuoteMarijuana has many medical values.
Do tell. Let me guess, your response is going to have the word: "Temporary" somewhere, if not multiple times, in it. Let me tell you about temporary medicinal treatments. I saw a good man get out of the Corps with nothing more than a drug addiction because they couldn't fix his leg. They just kept feeding him Vicodin until the day he got out. Would you want to have to take 500mg of Vitamin-I for the rest of your life to help ease your joint pain, or would you rather a doctor just fix the problem, instead of masking the pain. I vote for the former.
Ok, what about things that aren't fixable? You really have no choice then. Like terminal illnesses such as cancer. You can go through tons of treatments and still not get rid of it and either way you'll be in pain. Sooo, you have no choice but to be on pain killers until you die.
Quote from: DarkTrinity on November 04, 2010, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: T-Rok on November 04, 2010, 12:12:04 PM
/snip
Idk what Americans you're talking about, but it's the exact same thing here. If you have marijuana on you, they just take what you have and if you have a bowl on you, they'll smash it. Unless you are caught with a substantial amount(hinting you might possibly be dealing it), then they will take you in. But I'm pretty sure it has to be a certain weight for them to bring you in.
Oh.. I was talking to some Americans and they were talking about how up here in Canada we have it so easy. I must figure out which state they live in. lol
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it.
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it. Means nothing more than a random fact. Unless you can link it more to the question.
for example:
Should we give prisoners in jail loaded machine guns?
Yes, It's a tool.
Actually, I think the fact that it's a plant is a pretty good argument. It goes to show how imposing our government has become in trying to protect people from themselves. What if we found out that smoking paper was worse for the lungs than cigarettes, would we make it illegal to own any, despite the abundance of trees and the useful properties of it? Trying to stop people from owning something that grows freely in the ground is just silly.
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it. Means nothing more than a random fact. Unless you can link it more to the question.
for example:
Should we give prisoners in jail loaded machine guns?
Yes, It's a tool.
Actually, I think the fact that it's a plant is a pretty good argument. It goes to show how imposing our government has become in trying to protect people from themselves. What if we found out that smoking paper was worse for the lungs than cigarettes, would we make it illegal to own any, despite the abundance of trees and the useful properties of it? Trying to stop people from owning something that grows freely in the ground is just silly.
Not really a direct response to what you're saying, but because what you said reminded me of this... but apparently you can get high off smoking incense. Because it's cheap, legal and you can buy it at a ton of places. (which is why people tried it in the first place). Though I would not condone trying it, because it is not common(that I know of) and there haven't been any tests on the effects of smoking it.
Just some food for thought. lol. People try some weird stuff to get high...
Quote from: DarkTrinity on November 04, 2010, 04:53:16 PM
Not really a direct response to what you're saying, but because what you said reminded me of this... but apparently you can get high off smoking incense. Because it's cheap, legal and you can buy it at a ton of places. (which is why people tried it in the first place). Though I would not condone trying it, because it is not common(that I know of) and there haven't been any tests on the effects of smoking it.
Just some food for thought. lol. People try some weird stuff to get high...
Yep, except often times getting high off incense is actually dangerous because of some of the chemicals they put in it. For example, I smoked something called k2, which is supposed to be "incense", and I thought I was having a heart attack. It's way more intense than any weed I've ever smoked.
I'm not arguing about weed. I'm talking about your post. Just for you to know. Yes its a plant but you need to explain why that matter at all in the conversation. My house is blue. So what.
This statement I quoted here is close to what I want to hear. Just saying its a plant does not automatically imply:
QuoteIt goes to show how imposing our government has become in trying to protect people from themselves. What if we found out that smoking paper was worse for the lungs than cigarettes, would we make it illegal to own any, despite the abundance of trees and the useful properties of it? Trying to stop people from owning something that grows freely in the ground is just silly.
But now that you explain that I think that will help your case more.
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it. Means nothing more than a random fact. Unless you can link it more to the question.
for example:
Should we give prisoners in jail loaded machine guns?
Yes, It's a tool.
Actually, I think the fact that it's a plant is a pretty good argument. It goes to show how imposing our government has become in trying to protect people from themselves. What if we found out that smoking paper was worse for the lungs than cigarettes, would we make it illegal to own any, despite the abundance of trees and the useful properties of it? Trying to stop people from owning something that grows freely in the ground is just silly.
Sorry, I had to say something. As I'm of the opinion that people should learn to not abuse shit like this in the first place so we wouldn't have to impose rules like this(and even then, the rules don't do much, if anything, it's a detriment)-and also that I'm still not quite sure where I stand on this, I'm trying to stay out of this, but this is an incredibly weak argument. Smoking paper doesn't produce the high weed does, and that's the only reason people smoke it in the first place. People, despite how incredibly stupid they can be, don't harm themselves unless there's a BIG trade-off to them. (I'm not saying it's worse than alcohol or smoking, quite the opposite in fact, doesn't change the fact it can be harmful in some contexts. I'd personally like alcohol and smoking to be legal, but taxed to
hell and back, talking ~$40 for cheap alcohol, and ~$40 for a small pack of cigarettes) That trade-off is the fact it's a narcotic, and they can get high off of it. The reason governments try to protect people from themselves is that sometimes they can harm themselves incredibly without realizing it, no matter HOW knowledgeable you think you are on the subject. (For the record, I'm not talking about weed.) Humans are their own worst enemy. Like ARTgames said:
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it.
A knife is just a kitchen utensil, should I give it to the mentally unstable kid who's been ridiculed by everyone at his school during school hours and who sits next to a bully in his grade? Why not, it's just a utensil.
The distinction you guys have to make is between harming oneself, debatable as a right, and harming other people, which is not debatable as a right.
Giving prisoners loaded machine guns and giving a bullied kid a knife are examples of allowing methods to hurt other people. Allowing people to smoke weed is allowing people a method of hurting themselves. Your analogy doesn't work in this regard.
Also, Jake, your analogy doesn't work, because paper doesn't grow freely in the ground, it's manufactured.
The question pretty much boils down to: How much should the government be allowed to control one's actions, if you are harming no one but yourself? And yes, I of course realize that you guys can come up with all sorts of ways 'weed can harm other people', such as potential car crashes from high people, etc. but these things can happen with or without weed. I'm talking merely the act of smoking weed itself.
P.S. I'll clarify my position on the subject to anyone who is curious: I believe that we should legalize weed insofar that we can easily do studies on it, so we can determine the true facts on the issue. The government has plenty of claims and the pro-weeders have plenty of claims, but they both also have significant bias towards their particular sides, causing me to question which claims made by each are actually valid.
Quote from: Chaos on November 04, 2010, 06:14:20 PM
Giving prisoners loaded machine guns and giving a bullied kid a knife are examples of allowing methods to hurt other people. Allowing people to smoke weed is allowing people a method of hurting themselves. Your analogy doesn't work in this regard.
It doesn't work in that regard, I realize that. It was more of an extreme counter to what Jake was saying.
Quote from: Chaos on November 04, 2010, 06:14:20 PM
P.S. I'll clarify my position on the subject to anyone who is curious: I believe that we should legalize weed insofar that we can easily do studies on it, so we can determine the true facts on the issue. The government has plenty of claims and the pro-weeders have plenty of claims, but they both also have significant bias towards their particular sides, causing me to question which claims made by each are actually valid.
I pretty much have the same view on that, but I'm still not sure about what should happen after. I have an issue with people harming themselves if it causes them to hurt others or if hurting themselves becomes a widespread issue and daily life is impacted because a good fifth of our country is constantly high. Again, I don't know the true facts of what happens, which is why I favor what you said. I'm just divulging my moral beliefs.
Quote from: Mystery on November 04, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it. Means nothing more than a random fact. Unless you can link it more to the question.
for example:
Should we give prisoners in jail loaded machine guns?
Yes, It's a tool.
Actually, I think the fact that it's a plant is a pretty good argument. It goes to show how imposing our government has become in trying to protect people from themselves. What if we found out that smoking paper was worse for the lungs than cigarettes, would we make it illegal to own any, despite the abundance of trees and the useful properties of it? Trying to stop people from owning something that grows freely in the ground is just silly.
Sorry, I had to say something. As I'm of the opinion that people should learn to not abuse shit like this in the first place so we wouldn't have to impose rules like this(and even then, the rules don't do much, if anything, it's a detriment)-and also that I'm still not quite sure where I stand on this, I'm trying to stay out of this, but this is an incredibly weak argument. Smoking paper doesn't produce the high weed does, and that's the only reason people smoke it in the first place. People, despite how incredibly stupid they can be, don't harm themselves unless there's a BIG trade-off to them. (I'm not saying it's worse than alcohol or smoking, quite the opposite in fact, doesn't change the fact it can be harmful in some contexts. I'd personally like alcohol and smoking to be legal, but taxed to hell and back, talking ~$40 for cheap alcohol, and ~$40 for a small pack of cigarettes) That trade-off is the fact it's a narcotic, and they can get high off of it. The reason governments try to protect people from themselves is that sometimes they can harm themselves incredibly without realizing it, no matter HOW knowledgeable you think you are on the subject. (For the record, I'm not talking about weed.) Humans are their own worst enemy. Like ARTgames said:
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it.
A knife is just a kitchen utensil, should I give it to the mentally unstable kid who's been ridiculed by everyone at his school during school hours and who sits next to a bully in his grade? Why not, it's just a utensil.
Maybe you misunderstood my argument, considering you didn't really disagree with me on anything. The government can't protect people from themselves, even if they want to. If you ban something like weed, you might as well ban things like incense, glue, and all the other dangerous household products out there. Not only can they get you high, but they are extremely dangerous too (unlike weed, which is only illegal because it's popular and it's popular because it's safer). If everybody stopped doing weed, they'd move on to whatever else they can get their hands on (possibly something even more dangerous). That's why I used the analogy with paper, which I admit, wasn't the best.
Quote from: Chaos on November 04, 2010, 06:14:20 PM
QuoteAlso, Jake, your analogy doesn't work, because paper doesn't grow freely in the ground, it's manufactured.
Fine, we'll say bark instead.
QuoteP.S. I'll clarify my position on the subject to anyone who is curious: I believe that we should legalize weed insofar that we can easily do studies on it, so we can determine the true facts on the issue. The government has plenty of claims and the pro-weeders have plenty of claims, but they both also have significant bias towards their particular sides, causing me to question which claims made by each are actually valid.
I agree there's a lot of bias out there, but there are also a lot of non-biased sources that support the fact that weed isn't nearly as dangerous as the government wants us to believe.
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: Mystery on November 04, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM
Do you(you as in anyone here) think people should be sent to jail for having any amount of it?
No, It's a plant.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it. Means nothing more than a random fact. Unless you can link it more to the question.
for example:
Should we give prisoners in jail loaded machine guns?
Yes, It's a tool.
Actually, I think the fact that it's a plant is a pretty good argument. It goes to show how imposing our government has become in trying to protect people from themselves. What if we found out that smoking paper was worse for the lungs than cigarettes, would we make it illegal to own any, despite the abundance of trees and the useful properties of it? Trying to stop people from owning something that grows freely in the ground is just silly.
Sorry, I had to say something. As I'm of the opinion that people should learn to not abuse shit like this in the first place so we wouldn't have to impose rules like this(and even then, the rules don't do much, if anything, it's a detriment)-and also that I'm still not quite sure where I stand on this, I'm trying to stay out of this, but this is an incredibly weak argument. Smoking paper doesn't produce the high weed does, and that's the only reason people smoke it in the first place. People, despite how incredibly stupid they can be, don't harm themselves unless there's a BIG trade-off to them. (I'm not saying it's worse than alcohol or smoking, quite the opposite in fact, doesn't change the fact it can be harmful in some contexts. I'd personally like alcohol and smoking to be legal, but taxed to hell and back, talking ~$40 for cheap alcohol, and ~$40 for a small pack of cigarettes) That trade-off is the fact it's a narcotic, and they can get high off of it. The reason governments try to protect people from themselves is that sometimes they can harm themselves incredibly without realizing it, no matter HOW knowledgeable you think you are on the subject. (For the record, I'm not talking about weed.) Humans are their own worst enemy. Like ARTgames said:
Quote from: ARTgames on November 04, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
I'm not saying I disagree with you but that's a weak argument. Uranium is just a metal for example. Does not mean I think anyone's should have it.
A knife is just a kitchen utensil, should I give it to the mentally unstable kid who's been ridiculed by everyone at his school during school hours and who sits next to a bully in his grade? Why not, it's just a utensil.
I don't think you even understand what my argument is, considering you didn't really disagree with me on anything. The government can't protect people from themselves, even if they want to. If you ban something like weed, you might as well ban things like incense, glue, and all the other dangerous household products out there. Not only can they get you high, but they are extremely dangerous too (unlike weed, which is only illegal because it's popular). If everybody stopped doing weed, they'd move on to whatever else they can get their hands on (possibly something even more dangerous).
But are as many people using those things to get high, even when weed is illegal? No. And people AREN'T going to stop doing weed, as you said yourself. It's too easily accessible, even when illegal. I know kids PERSONALLY who grow weed and hide drugs, and their parents are too stupid to find out. If they stopped doing weed, they'd go to using pills, not trying to get high off of glue or sniffing Magic Markers.
One major thing I'd like to point out is that you shouldn't NEED to get high. You may like it, but there's so many other ways to enjoy yourself without using narcotics. If you're using it for medicinal purposes, fine, that's good. If you're experiencing major depression, an hour-long high won't cure that, and you'll most likely rely on getting high and doing nothing else for sadness from then on instead of sharing problems, relaxing and doing what you like, or visiting a shrink instead of living off a plant when you get gloomy. ...Heck, if you want to do it every once in a while(every month or something for a short period of time), sure, go ahead. I don't like it when people become chronic drug users, which about 95% of the kids I see trying out weed for their first time become.
EDIT:
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 06:49:22 PM
QuoteP.S. I'll clarify my position on the subject to anyone who is curious: I believe that we should legalize weed insofar that we can easily do studies on it, so we can determine the true facts on the issue. The government has plenty of claims and the pro-weeders have plenty of claims, but they both also have significant bias towards their particular sides, causing me to question which claims made by each are actually valid.
I agree there's a lot of bias out there, but there are also a lot of non-biased sources that support the fact that weed isn't nearly as dangerous as the government wants us to believe.
Examples of some of these sites? I'm of the opinion it'd be better if we did what Chaos said, and eliminated any room for bias beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Quote from: Chaos on November 04, 2010, 06:14:20 PM
The distinction you guys have to make is between harming oneself, debatable as a right, and harming other people, which is not debatable as a right.
Giving prisoners loaded machine guns and giving a bullied kid a knife are examples of allowing methods to hurt other people. Allowing people to smoke weed is allowing people a method of hurting themselves. Your analogy doesn't work in this regard.
Your missed my point. All I was asking Jake to explain more. The machine guns has nothing to do with the pot talk at all. Its off topic for the most part.
Quote
I'm not arguing about weed. I'm talking about your post.
But I cant speak for mystery.
QuoteQuote from: Mystery on November 04, 2010, 07:05:13 PM
But are as many people using those things to get high, even when weed is illegal? No. And people AREN'T going to stop doing weed, as you said yourself. It's too easily accessible, even when illegal. I know kids PERSONALLY who grow weed and hide drugs, and their parents are too stupid to find out. If they stopped doing weed, they'd go to using pills, not trying to get high off of glue or sniffing Magic Markers.
That's because kids go to the next less dangerous thing that still gets them what they want. Pills are much more dangerous and addictive than stuff like weed, and if it's not pills, it's incense. I know so many people who only smoke k2 incense because they're trying to get a job that drug tests. Because of this, they put their lives in danger to get the same high as marijuana. It's just stupid, and can be fixed if marijuana is legalized.
Quote
One major thing I'd like to point out is that you shouldn't NEED to get high. You may like it, but there's so many other ways to enjoy yourself without using narcotics. If you're using it for medicinal purposes, fine, that's good. If you're experiencing major depression, an hour-long high won't cure that, and you'll most likely rely on getting high and doing nothing else for sadness from then on instead of sharing problems, relaxing and doing what you like, or visiting a shrink instead of living off a plant when you get gloomy. ...Heck, if you want to do it every once in a while(every month or something for a short period of time), sure, go ahead. I don't like it when people become chronic drug users, which about 95% of the kids I see trying out weed for their first time become.
Yeah I agree with this. I don't think it's healthy to become a chronic drug user either, because it can take over your life and your paycheck if you're not careful.
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 07:13:43 PM
QuoteQuote from: Mystery on November 04, 2010, 07:05:13 PM
But are as many people using those things to get high, even when weed is illegal? No. And people AREN'T going to stop doing weed, as you said yourself. It's too easily accessible, even when illegal. I know kids PERSONALLY who grow weed and hide drugs, and their parents are too stupid to find out. If they stopped doing weed, they'd go to using pills, not trying to get high off of glue or sniffing Magic Markers.
That's because kids go to the next less dangerous thing that still gets them what they want. Pills are much more dangerous and addictive than stuff like weed, and if it's not pills, it's incense. I know so many people who only smoke k2 incense because they're trying to get a job that drug tests. Because of this, they put their lives in danger to get the same high as marijuana. It's just stupid, and can be fixed if marijuana is legalized.
That wouldn't solve anything, the kids would still be punished since I guarantee you there'd be an age limit. All that would happen is that the number of marijuana users would go up, and you have no proof that the number of alternative high seekers wouldn't quit using what they're using.
Quote from: Jake on November 04, 2010, 07:13:43 PM
Quote
One major thing I'd like to point out is that you shouldn't NEED to get high. You may like it, but there's so many other ways to enjoy yourself without using narcotics. If you're using it for medicinal purposes, fine, that's good. If you're experiencing major depression, an hour-long high won't cure that, and you'll most likely rely on getting high and doing nothing else for sadness from then on instead of sharing problems, relaxing and doing what you like, or visiting a shrink instead of living off a plant when you get gloomy. ...Heck, if you want to do it every once in a while(every month or something for a short period of time), sure, go ahead. I don't like it when people become chronic drug users, which about 95% of the kids I see trying out weed for their first time become.
Yeah I agree with this. I don't think it's healthy to become a chronic drug user either, because it can take over your life and your paycheck if you're not careful.
I'm glad we agree on this. :)
Honestly, I see where you're coming from, but I've seen what can happen to kids that try this stuff, and it's impacted me personally. Some of these kids were actually good, and would've continued down a good path in life if one of their friends hadn't offered them marijuana. Alcohol is a problem too(smoking, not quite as much, considering far less people do that), but weed is FAR more widespread where I am.
Quote from: Meiun on November 03, 2010, 09:44:40 PM
Let me start by saying that I don't smoke weed, or anything for that matter. Also, I don't typically like hanging out with people who are stoned all the time. But that being said, I still think it would probably be a good call to legalize it. It really isn't even as bad or as dangerous as alcohol, and when you consider the fact that a HUGE portion of the people in jail in the US are in for drug related crimes, it would save a hell of a lot of money to stop paying to jail people for dumb shit like soft-core drugs. I forget the exact number, but it cost a ridiculous amount of money to keep a prisoner in jail each year, and all that money comes from taxes on the rest of us. I don't mind the idea of higher taxes if it is actually benefiting people, but paying for pot-heads/dealers seems kind of ridiculous.
I'm quoting this because there's no point in writing the same thing in my own words...
This is my exact opinion on the matter.
I just wanna throw in some om noms for thought here...
If weed where not smoked and were in say, pill form, would it change your opinion on the matter?
And don't just say no because you think it's the right answer. I seriously want peoples' opinions about that. Because everything that American's smoke(cigarettes/cigars) people have a general issue with, mostly because the smoke harms other people.
Were marijuana to be in pill form, smoke wouldn't harm other people(not saying it does now) and it obviously would harm no one but yourself.
Think of it as something like ibuprofen or vicadin or some other pain relieving drug, which generally, people seem to not have as harsh a stand against, yet people can overdose on ibuprofen and you can buy that at any drugstore.
That is quite an interesting take on things. I have to say, I would be all for it. I don't know why pill form would change my opinion, but it immediately loses all sense of evil to it. Perhaps its because I view it like Advil, which is only taken when you have a headache (hopefully). If it was to be used properly, there would be no problem.
Quote from: Mystery on November 04, 2010, 07:24:24 PM
That wouldn't solve anything, the kids would still be punished since I guarantee you there'd be an age limit. All that would happen is that the number of marijuana users would go up, and you have no proof that the number of alternative high seekers wouldn't quit using what they're using.
Oops, misunderstanding. I was going on the scenario that weed couldn't be obtained, not just illegal. If the government actually did stop people from getting weed, they'd still have tons of other stuff to turn to, which would probably end up making it more dangerous for minors. If I'm completely missing the point, let me know, because I am so out of it.
I don't really think it's right to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves.
Its not just to themselves though. I get sick every time I get any amount of the pot scent.
Quote from: T-Rok on November 06, 2010, 07:41:34 PM
Its not just to themselves though. I get sick every time I get any amount of the pot scent.
That's honestly probably your fault for letting yourself get put into a situation where people are smoking pot around you.
Actually in BC, you can walk on any normal street and have people walk past you smoking pot. So nice try with the attempt at blaming me.
Quote from: T-Rok on November 07, 2010, 02:20:55 AM
Actually in BC, you can walk on any normal street and have people walk past you smoking pot. So nice try with the attempt at blaming me.
Call the cops on them if you've got that big of an issue with a scent like that. I absolutely hate cigarette smoke, and it's completely legal, so I use a little bit of common sense to make sure I don't get put in a situation where I'm huffing fumes. This is sometimes unavoidable, but it's not the end of the world to have to smell it. If marijuana smoke does make you very sick, you need to prioritize your lifestyle.
Either way, making something illegal because you don't like the smell of it means nothing to the rest of the world. I just found out I'm insanely allergic to certain dogs and cats, so should we outlaw them too? It's probably one of the worst arguments for keeping it illegal I've seen thus far, and as you can see in British Columbia, it's not helping in the least bit to deter people from smoking.
I like how you've changed what I was talking about.
Quote from: Specialboy
I don't really think it's right to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves
I was informing him that it is not just themselves they are doing it too. I am not in this topic to argue over legality nor to have someone come along and try to turn my statement into an argument. If I was in this topic to argue over the legality, I would argue that due to inhalation of pot smoke whilst my mother was pregnant with me I suffer from short term memory loss. But since I'm not, it doesn't really matter. I could not care less about whether or not it is legal or illegal. So while I could argue many of your points, I'm just going to go with a g'day sir.
g'day sir.
Quote from: T-Rok on November 07, 2010, 03:01:18 PM
I like how you've changed what I was talking about.
Quote from: Specialboy
I don't really think it's right to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves
I was informing him that it is not just themselves they are doing it too. I am not in this topic to argue over legality nor to have someone come along and try to turn my statement into an argument. If I was in this topic to argue over the legality, I would argue that due to inhalation of pot smoke whilst my mother was pregnant with me I suffer from short term memory loss. But since I'm not, it doesn't really matter. I could not care less about whether or not it is legal or illegal. So while I could argue many of your points, I'm just going to go with a g'day sir.
g'day sir.
Eh, You're right. I guess I misread that. I wouldn't be against the enforcement of laws that make it so pot smokers only effect themselves. For example, maybe making it so pot can only be consumed through vaporizers, or by digesting it. Of course, people can still do stupid stuff when under the influence, so it's possible that they still effect other people with their actions.
Also realize that if pot smoking is legalized, it does not mean pregnant women would have the right to smoke (not sure if you were talking about second hand smoke or not).
I'm fine with pot as long as it's taken in moderation. Nothing makes me rage more than stoners putting weed on a pedestal and never shutting the hell up about it. Except for determinists.
Interesting... (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization&ref=nf)
Well there you go.
I'm pretty sure that's what The Union stated to do(the video jake demanded people to watch). Not legalize, but decriminalize.
Although its been like a year since I watched it..
Decriminalization has its pro's and con's. Pro's would be that it emphasizes on correcting a medical issue, frees up jail cells (except for the pushers, who rightfully should be left to rot), and money that would be spent on feeding those non-violent drug users can be put towards research. Con's would be that it may be easier to facilitate the acquisition of the some of the more harmful narcotics that do have potential to rattle your hamster's wheel (see in the article where they mention the decreased usage of the ganja amongst youngsters, I'd imagine that isn't a coincidence with this sort of policy), drug use could rise (notice how they didn't mention statistics with regards to drug usage in the article, only drug abuse, which yes, are two separate things), and quite possibly, it could all backfire, and once this decriminalization tips the lid off Pandora's box, good luck getting it back on.
I'm impartial to this, neutral so to speak. I can see both sides, but unfortunately, I don't see one side of the argument more convincing then the other right now (I honestly don't think the drug abuse problem in America is as bad as some would have us think, but that's just opinion) to persuade me either way.
Quote from: DarkTrinity on November 08, 2010, 01:21:31 PM
I'm pretty sure that's what The Union stated to do(the video jake demanded people to watch). Not legalize, but decriminalize.
Although its been like a year since I watched it..
Other way around. They said decriminalization would be bad because it sends the wrong message. Decriminalization basically says that weed is still wrong and that's it's not really accepted by society (which they're trying to change by legalizing it). It also would do nothing to deter drug violence (according to them).
I do think decriminalization has some pro's though, like Scotty was saying. I'm of the mindset that drug use isn't really a criminal act, it's a medical issue. People need to stop being sent to prison over their addictions, and be forced to get help instead.
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2010, 01:41:08 PM
It also would do nothing to deter drug violence (according to them).
That's the big one I didn't think to mention. When you think about it, decriminalization doesn't alter the position of drug pushers. They are still going to sell. This affects the users, not the pushers. If you decriminalize the pushers, then you are near legalizing it anyways.
I honestly don't see how this would deter selling drugs as a dealer, so if I'm missing something, I'm all ears.