The Green

[DarkTrinity]

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.

[T-Rok]

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.

[Jake]

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.

[Specialboy]

I don't really think it's right to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves.

[T-Rok]

Its not just to themselves though. I get sick every time I get any amount of the pot scent.

[Jake]

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.

[T-Rok]

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.

[Jake]

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.

[T-Rok]

I like how you've changed what I was talking about.

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.

[Jake]

I like how you've changed what I was talking about.

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).

[Yankyal]

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.

[Scotty]

Interesting...

[Chaos]

Well there you go.

[DarkTrinity]

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..

[Scotty]

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.