The Green

[Jake]

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.

[ARTgames]

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.

[Jake]

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.

[DarkTrinity]

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...

[Jake]

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.

[ARTgames]

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:

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.

But now that you explain that I think that will help your case more.

[Mystery]

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:

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.

[Chaos]

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.

[Mystery]

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.

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.

[Jake]

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:

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.

Also, Jake, your analogy doesn't work, because paper doesn't grow freely in the ground, it's manufactured.

Fine, we'll say bark instead.

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 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.

[Mystery]

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:

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:

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 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.

[ARTgames]

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.

I'm not arguing about weed. I'm talking about your post.

But I cant speak for mystery.

[Jake]

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.

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.

[Mystery]

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.

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.

[HamsterPants]

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.