I'm yet to hear one convincing argument against the legalization of marijuana, anyone care to proffer one?

Why stop at marijuna?

What about its links with causing mental disorders especially when combined with continual long term use.

I've seen it happen to two of my friends who were in their 20s.

I say do as the Dutch do, legalise most class B and below drugs, and for that matter legalise prostitution, then tax it and regulate the hell out of it.
Then again thats just me.....
No I can see no reason to not legalise Marijuana,
also pronouncing it Ma-rij-oo-ana sounds better

EDIT: George Spiggott, that must've been awful to see
but potentially anything damages health and the money spent keeping marijuana off the streets could be better spent keeping it with the dealers not in the hands of addicts

Do you know any potheads? That should be reason enough.

Well many people say that it has some sort of medical use(most likely releaving pain).I watched a tv program on it,in some parts of Canada it is already legalized(I think),there is a big movement from what I understand.

whatwhat wrote:Why stop at marijuna?

I wholeheartedly agree, but I think this thread will be a lot more manageable if we do.

George Spiggott wrote:What about its links with causing mental disorders especially when combined with continual long term use.

I've seen it happen to two of my friends who were in their 20s.

Alcohol causes brain damage if used heavily enough over a long enough period of time. If we are in the business of banning anything that has the potential to cause harm, why stop at weed? Why is alcohol legal?

Also, I'm always interested in reading studies linking cannabis to mental health problems, if you know of any good ones let me know. Annecdotal evidence is not evidence I'm afraid.

I'm a pretty big proponent of individual rights, so legal pot kinda falls into that category. National Public Radio had a really interesting debate between some experts on the subject. They look at the possible effects of it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103276152

"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I feth, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

Bill Hicks speaks the truth.

Yes but weed gives you mad munchies that can lead to terrible thing,lol.

George Spiggott wrote:What about its links with causing mental disorders especially when combined with continual long term use.

I've seen it happen to two of my friends who were in their 20s.

Disproved by the Danish study last year. There is no higher rate of schizophrenia amongst cannabis users than the general population, once you screen out family tendency to mental disorder.

No disrespect to your friends. My brother had a breakdown while using cannabis in his 20s.

Septic wrote:I say do as the Dutch do, legalise most class B and below drugs, and for that matter legalise prostitution, then tax it and regulate the hell out of it.
Then again thats just me.....
No I can see no reason to not legalise Marijuana,
also pronouncing it Ma-rij-oo-ana sounds better

EDIT: George Spiggott, that must've been awful to see
but potentially anything damages health and the money spent keeping marijuana off the streets could be better spent keeping it with the dealers not in the hands of addicts

I agree with this. There are a number of normal human behaviours such as taking drugs, getting drunk and having sex, which are never going to go away no matter how much they are made illegal.

While they do some social harm, it is better to minimise the harm by sensible regulation within a legal framework, rather than encourage the activities to flourish as organised crime.

Greebynog wrote:Alcohol causes brain damage if used heavily enough over a long enough period of time. If we are in the business of banning anything that has the potential to cause harm, why stop at weed? Why is alcohol legal?

The argument is for adding an additional 'product' onto the mass market, that Alcohol damages people is not a reason to legalise cannabis.

Greebynog wrote:Annecdotal evidence is not evidence I'm afraid.

Then what is it?

In all seriousness, I was relating my personal experiences. I would be opposed to cannabis becoming as commonly used as say tobacco you can Google the studies yourself if they're the only evidence you'll accept.

Someone needs to come up with a way to allow these things to become available without creating the bingeing lifestyle that accompanies tobacco and alcohol use. There needs to be more limiting factors that price because that just makes people poor and dependant.

I forgot,using a certain drug(think it is meth)is not illegal in Norway.The government supplies them with magazines to sell(to be able to feed their habit),they also have set up restraunts that the people who can prove they are on afore mentioned drug can eat for free.They also have places where they can recieve clean needles,and use the drug in a controlled setting.


They say they have had less crime,also that they have had less drug related death.Maybe if other governments could run such a program,people would not have to resort to crime or something of this manner to feed their habit.

The name of the documentary is escaping me, but one of the main underlying themes of it is that weed today is much more potent than it was 30+ years ago. The increased potentcy (sp) is creating different, and untested, side effects.

Personally I'm against it. Unfortunately I know several potheads (within my family tree as well) and there is rarely a casual user. They generally started when they were younger and the continued use has been detrimental to their life.

Let's say the US government (heaven forbid) should legalize it. Guess what, the government is going to get involved. They'll grow it, sale it, and tax it. It will do nothing but harm society. If you're going to legalize it then why not legalize cocaine and pcp? What harm could that do.

The documentary was called super weed.(If I rember correctly.)

I'm for it.
If there's less medical problems associated with it than smoking tobacco and alcohol, then what's the problem?

EDIT::
I won't be using it, and if you tax it to huge heights I still have no problem.

Again, I'd love to see evidence that increased potency causes unintended side affects.

Cannabis is non-addictive, non-lethal and has proven medical benefits. How is it in any way the same as cocaine or pcp?

Just remembered: Messing with Heads
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1315274.htm

Covers the lives of some Australian teens.

Regardless of what weed may, or may not, do for you it comes down to people having a hole in their lives and their need to fill it with something. I understand this, I chew tobacco and have had issues with other stuff in my past. It makes you feel good and gives you the opportunity to live "outside the box", I get this.

Off topic, but look at heroine. How many musicians have lived and died by heroine? It allows them to feel and think differently. They become inspired and create great music. For an example see Scott Weiland (STP), the guy from Blind Melon, and many others. It always ends badly. I'm not saying that weed is on the same level, but it leads to people doing stupid stuff. Alcohol acts in the same way (in mass quantities of course). I think weed becomes like a wrecking ball to your inhibitions.

barlio wrote:The name of the documentary is escaping me, but one of the main underlying themes of it is that weed today is much more potent than it was 30+ years ago. The increased potentcy (sp) is creating different, and untested, side effects.

Personally I'm against it. Unfortunately I know several potheads (within my family tree as well) and there is rarely a casual user. They generally started when they were younger and the continued use has been detrimental to their life.

Let's say the US government (heaven forbid) should legalize it. Guess what, the government is going to get involved. They'll grow it, sale it, and tax it. It will do nothing but harm society. If you're going to legalize it then why not legalize cocaine and pcp? What harm could that do.

There is no reliable scientific evidence to support the widely spoken claim that modern pot is much (20x, 40x) stronger than 20-30 years ago.

Secondly, users titrate the amount of active chemical they ingest through the smoking process. It's different with eaten cannabis of course.

Thirdly, part of the advantage of a legal framework would be to test and classify the strength of doses in the same way as beer or medicines.

Greebynog wrote:Again, I'd love to see evidence that increased potency causes unintended side affects.

Cannabis is non-addictive, non-lethal and has proven medical benefits. How is it in any way the same as cocaine or pcp?

Non-addictive my butt. Sure you smoke it once no problems, a couple of times life is good, then eventually you're smoking twice a week and buying Dave Matthews CDs (nothing wrong with Dave Matthews).

Again I'm not an expert (not that anybody is implying that), but I'm going off of personal experience with people I know. You can't measure how people cope with life. Science can only go so far. Why would anybody invest serious amounts of money into proving what marijuana can, or cannot do to you? For the time being most countries are going to keep it restricted. The stated medical benefits only help a limited amount of people and a majority of people in the real world could care less. Grass-root campaigns to legalize it (I used a pun, hurr hurr) are generally poorly organized and bad sources of information. Until there is a world-wide campaign to legalize it I will see it as a relatively non-issue.

Edit: @op, to obtain a more balanced view I would have suggested a thread title of "Should Marijuana be Legalized? Discuss". Just from the title we know your intentions and I don't know if you would get the full extent of possible disscusions. Just saying.

People can certainly fall into a cycle of excessive usage, but cannabis is not physically addictive. Thus, non-addictive. Also, addictiveness is not something we measure potential legality by. Cigarettes are extremely addictive.

And what's wrong with smoking a couple of times a week? There is plenty wrong with the Dave Matthews Band though.

Edit: Barlio, I think my opinion would have become clear very quickly anyway, and I've invited the opposite viewpoint throughout, that was the entire content of my first post in fact.

Also, regardless of whether marijuana is harmful or not, is that enough reason for your government to stop you doing it? Who has the right to tell me not to do anything I want that harms no other? The only real, serious harm caused by marijuana today is because it is illegal.

Greebynog wrote:have become clear very quickly anyway, and I've invited the opposite viewpoint throughout, that was the entire content of my first post in fact.

Also, regardless of whether marijuana is harmful or not, is that enough reason for your government to stop you doing it? Who has the right to tell me not to do anything I want that harms no other? The only real, serious harm caused by marijuana today is because it is illegal.

@Greebynog: I get your point. I just disagree with it, but as long as you are not willing to change your mind on a dime than that is fine (having principles is a good thing even if I disagree with them). As long as healthy discussion is on the table I'm cool with it (good for the brain).

Whether or not it harms somebody else is irrelevant. Sometimes we don't see the full effects. As far as not being harmful the last point I will make is in regards to a pregnant woman. If it is not harmful then what is wrong with a pregnant woman toking up? http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/f/mjkids_faq14.htm

I just think it is one of those things that should be avoided, but the discussion is interesting regardless.

Advocating legalization isn't the same as saying 'WEED FOR ALL!'. I think there should be an age limit, as marijuana can have detrimental affects on the developing brain, hence why it's not a good idea for pregnant women. In adults though, not harmful.

I can see why you think it should be avoided, but should otherwise law-abiding citizens be criminalised and put through an already stretched legal system because they get high?

Well, that's the crux of anything that is illegal. Regardless of why, or why not, it is illegal, it's still illegal. If people break the law, you go to jail. It sucks that drug infractions make up such a large proportion of the crime (at least in the US), but when people are dumb that's what happens. Trust me, I hate paying for these people sitting around doing little in jail, but that is just the way things are. It's a common sense thing to you and me, but some people don't get it.

This reminds me of an episode of COPS where the cop had pulled over this redneck. The redneck had a joint on the top of his ear (next to his cap and fine, fine mullet) and the cop was asking him if he had smoked any weed today. The guy was like, "Hurr, nope not today". The cop points out the joint and the guy goes whiter than he already was.

Off topic, but the best episode of COPS was when the cop couldn't stop laughing because of the black midget (who just started booking it the second he saw the cop)that was trying to scale a light pole.

barlio wrote:Do you know any potheads? That should be reason enough.

What, they perform a useful function in society. Before the invention of the illegal immigrant they worked in countless minimum wage jobs the non-mouthbreathers wouldn't touch. Besides, someone has to give blood and "volunteer" for medical trials





(The above is sarcasm for the professionally offended).

barlio wrote:Well, that's the crux of anything that is illegal. Regardless of why, or why not, it is illegal, it's still illegal. If people break the law, you go to jail. It sucks that drug infractions make up such a large proportion of the crime (at least in the US), but when people are dumb that's what happens.

That's almost circular reasoning. It's illegal because its wrong and we know its wrong because its illegal?

I haven't smoked dope since University but it strikes me that the vast majority of problems surrounding dope (and most other drugs) stem from its legal status and the problems would be vastly reduced (if not eliminated) if dope where to be legalized, taxed and controlled.

The health concerns are a generally a smoke screen, given that heath problems can be also attributed to Alcohol, Salt, fatty foods and any attempt to regulate these are, rather hypocritically, met with almost universal commendation.

Besides when was the last time you read about anyone getting stoned and then murdering someone?

Pineapple Express, but I think since they were being shot at I don't think it is murder.

Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father smoked weed every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off. I don't think that drugs could be regulated well enough for (all of) them to be legal. Let's ignore large crimes like murder as an result of drug use (since it doesn't really happen), but does a druge user add a whole lot to others? Again, I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of if parents were using with kids in the house.

I am shocked at this discussion during these perilous economic times. Do you realize how many thousands of jobs would be lost if this were legalized? Police, jail sheriffs, judges, lawyers-come on here! And think of the underlying industry. Please won't someone think of the children of all these penny ante drug dealers you've just put out of work. What are you, a heartless Republican?

Greebynog wrote:"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I feth, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

Bill Hicks speaks the truth.

That he does.

Too bad neither party here believes it.

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father watched TV every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off.

Equally applicable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father watched TV every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off.

Equally applicable.

That's true, I'm just saying, once you're high, you're high. I've never shaken off a buzz. I have turned the TV off before though. Apples and oranges mate.

Not really.

If you spend the same amount of time doing both, you have pretty much the same effect. Of course smoking weed is worse if you spend more time doing it than watching TV, but that should go without saying.

Maybe you have less flexibility smoking weed, but who cares? There's a lot of other pointless activities you could do that require a larger time commitment than that.

Besides, restricting something from the general population on account of it consuming time that a parent could spend with their child is ridiculous.

The point is that you would have to be a frothing idiot to think that's a healthy environment for a child. I wonder how much money would have to be spent to regulate weed if it were legal? What type of regulations would have to be put in place?

Of course it's not the best environment for a child if their parents are permanantly high, same goes for drunk, asleep, eating, whatever. Again, not good cause for it to be illegal.

If you're going for an economic argument, what about all the taxable income from marijuana sales? Plus farmers have a great new cash crop to grow. Hemp is a great source of clothing material, paper and fuel too. Not to mention all the money saved by the police and judicial system, plus the removal of non-violent, normally law abiding people from the prison population. What good can come from throwing a pot smoker in jail? They're highly likely to pick up worse habits in there.

Yeah I'll have to concur that lots of drug offenders just get worse when they spend time in jail. Just watch Lockup on MSNBC, that will give you an education on what goes on behind bars.

youngblood wrote:The point is that you would have to be a frothing idiot to think that's a healthy environment for a child. I wonder how much money would have to be spent to regulate weed if it were legal? What type of regulations would have to be put in place?

It wouldn't be any more unhealthy than an environment where a kid's dad spends all his spare time playing World of Warcraft, though. Irresponsible parents are always going to raise a child poorly. You can't ban every recreational pastime on account of people ignoring their children to go screw around.

(Also, I wouldn't think regulation would cost any more than prohibition. If it did, weed would almost certainly be taxed anyways.)

OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

I don't think pot smokers should be thrown in jail. I'm just saying that controlling it is not a cheap or easy thing. More trouble than it's worth for the government I'm sure.

Easy solution
1. moderate taxation costs outweighed by the positive risk minimization to the logistical chain and the buyers.
2. Big corporate guys win. Bob the bud seller is not going to compete with Archer Daniels Midland. Cost savings in a big way.
3. Shoot people who sell it without paying taxes. Remember boys and girls, Dracon was a wimp.

Pot smokers want an easy life, do you think people enjoy meeting some shady bloke in a dodgy part of town to pick up some weed? I sure as hell know I don't. The dealers wouldn't report themselves, legal dispensaries a la California would be set up instead. Or just have it with the cigarettes in shops. If you're buying legally, the quality is guaranteed, you know you're not getting sand and crap in your pot, and yu have a choice of strains and strengths etc. Certainly prefferable to the illegal option. Of course there still would be criminal activity involving weed, as there is with alcohol, cigarettes, DVDs and batteries, but it would be significantly lessened.

Why would prices necessarily rise? Are prices higher in California dispensaries?

Edit: What Frazz said. Minus the shootings...

youngblood wrote:OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

Eh? Sounds like you're confusing the street price with the cost of manufacturing.

Weed's not any harder to grow than tobacco is, the cost of production would be similar. It's true that the government couldn't just tax it to infinity, but it could still be grown on farms, processed in plants, taxed an amount sufficient to cover the cost of regulation, and sold in a store for a lot less per gram than the cost of growing a plant in your basement and selling it on the street. It's the economics of scale. Thus, people would buy it from the cheaper, and legal, sources and drug dealers would no longer have a market for that product.

Otherwise you'd still have bootleggers everywhere, making whisky.

youngblood wrote:OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

I don't think pot smokers should be thrown in jail. I'm just saying that controlling it is not a cheap or easy thing. More trouble than it's worth for the government I'm sure.

In that case, why doesnt everyone buy booze or cigarrettes from bootleggers? sure, we dont think alcohol and cigarretes are overly expensive, but thats because thats the price we've always lived with. it might take awhile, but peiople would eventually buy 99% from legal vendors. Why risk getting arrested for a 5$ savings? I'm no pothead myself, but if it was legalized, i'd probably become a recreational user, and i wouldnt mind paying the price it would cost. I've done it before and it was one of the most fun experiences of my life.

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father smoked weed every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off. I don't think that drugs could be regulated well enough for (all of) them to be legal. Let's ignore large crimes like murder as an result of drug use (since it doesn't really happen), but does a druge user add a whole lot to others? Again, I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of if parents were using with kids in the house.

Actually from experience dealing with high people, a father that smoked up every so often would probably be alot of fun. High people are hilarious.

Greebynog wrote:
Why would prices necessarily rise? Are prices higher in California dispensaries?

Edit: What Frazz said. Minus the shootings...

Totally different with medical since the government doesn't tax it heavily. Don't know the prices though. Do you?

Frazzled

Greebynog

Orkeosaurus

spartanghost

HIVEMIND

mamma!

I just remembered that last night I was watching an episode of Holmes on Homes that involved a busted up former pot house. The house was based in Quebec I believe.
http://www.makeitright.ca/makeitright/Holmes_Media/view_episode.php?season_id=68&episode_id=333

That house was frightening, but was interesting to see the lengths that illegal growers will go to.

youngblood wrote:

Greebynog wrote:
Why would prices necessarily rise? Are prices higher in California dispensaries?

Edit: What Frazz said. Minus the shootings...

Totally different with medical since the government doesn't tax it heavily. Don't know the prices though. Do you?

Nope, hence me asking. It is a different thing though, agreed.

I tried to download what I belive is a very interesting link on this subject,but alas I was unable,however for anyone who may be interested,hop over to youtube and enter "Jello Biafra grow more pot",I found it very informitive.
For the record I am 100% in favor of legalizing marijuana(for reasons far to leaghthy to list ,but many of wich can be seen in the above link)and I havnt smoked weed in years.

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father smoked weed every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off. I don't think that drugs could be regulated well enough for (all of) them to be legal. Let's ignore large crimes like murder as an result of drug use (since it doesn't really happen), but does a druge user add a whole lot to others? Again, I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of if parents were using with kids in the house.

The same for cigarettes, drink, gambling, high fat foods and the shopping channel.

If some kind of self-abuse (ho ho) proved to be a major social harm, the government should do research to find out if the harm would be reduced by banning the activity or restricting it in some other way.

What happened with cannabis is that racial panics, associated with Chinese and Mexican immigration were conflated with drugs, and the USA got everyone to pass anti-drug laws. There's no evidence they work to restrict the use of drugs. In fact, like the rather similar Prohibition Amendment, they have made illegal drugs a highly profitable industry while criminalizing a large segment of the population.

It's no good to just say "I don't think blah blah". We have to do research to find out the facts.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

youngblood wrote:OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

Eh? Sounds like you're confusing the street price with the cost of manufacturing.

Weed's not any harder to grow than tobacco is, the cost of production would be similar. It's true that the government couldn't just tax it to infinity, but it could still be grown on farms, processed in plants, taxed an amount sufficient to cover the cost of regulation, and sold in a store for a lot less per gram than the cost of growing a plant in your basement and selling it on the street. It's the economics of scale. Thus, people would buy it from the cheaper, and legal, sources and drug dealers would no longer have a market for that product.

Otherwise you'd still have bootleggers everywhere, making whisky.

You still have quite a few illegal distilleries, moonshiners, and bootleggers selling cigarettes. I don't know for a fact but I would put money on there being someone rolling down the interstate in a truck right now loaded with cigarettes from North Carolina, headed for DC or New York City.

I personally believe all drugs should be legalised. Prohibition does not work. Didn't work for alcohol, hasn't worked for drugs. The US currently has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. We even beat China. Majority of those inmates are in for drug or drug related crimes. We have spent Billions, possibly trillions on the War On Drugs. It has failed spectacularly.

The US could save a fortune on our prison sytem, getting rid of the DEA, putting a lot of lawyers out of work (always a plus), raise additional revenue if taxed (again a perfectly fair tax, if you don't want to pay it, don't do the drugs.)

The government really has no business what a person puts into their own body. If a person wants to wreck their life, let them. Don't put in "clean needle" programs, or any other government programs. Let people do what they will. If they overdose, that was their decision to do the drug in the first place.

Also legalization would have the added benefit of social darwinism." Oh, your sisiter's cousin's, next door neighbor's kid overdosed on heroin? poor lad. he shouldn't have been stupid enough to take it in the first place. "

Bottom line the government should let people put whatever they want to into their own body. But that does not mean that the rest of us should have to pay for that persons treatment for addiction.

Greebynog wrote:I'm yet to hear one convincing argument against the legalization of marijuana, anyone care to proffer one?

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society. It's an addictive substance that significantly reduces capability, has longterm consequences that are much more than a smokescreen, and is a cheap alternative to actually improving your situation in real ways. It parallels well to alcohol, which accounts for many thousands of deaths every year, millions of destroyed lives, and a significant cost to the taxpayer.

The only difference being we can't retroactively ban alcohol and pot is banned now.




As for the people that think making drugs illegal doesn't work.. Well I suggest you all do a little bit of research back to the 70's, 40's and 19th century. Virtually every drug substance that was made illegal after a period of legality had its use severely reduced when it was made illegal. Just because there is no modern parallel (because people understand what drugs are now and why they are to be outlawed) doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

The same argument could be stated about the war on car accidents. Why do we even still enforce speed limits? People die anyway, clearly it isn't working.

Mango wrote:I personally believe all drugs should be legalised. Prohibition does not work. Didn't work for alcohol, hasn't worked for drugs. The US currently has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. We even beat China. Majority of those inmates are in for drug or drug related crimes. We have spent Billions, possibly trillions on the War On Drugs. It has failed spectacularly.

The US could save a fortune on our prison sytem, getting rid of the DEA, putting a lot of lawyers out of work (always a plus), raise additional revenue if taxed (again a perfectly fair tax, if you don't want to pay it, don't do the drugs.)

The government really has no business what a person puts into their own body. If a person wants to wreck their life, let them. Don't put in "clean needle" programs, or any other government programs. Let people do what they will. If they overdose, that was their decision to do the drug in the first place.

Also legalization would have the added benefit of social darwinism." Oh, your sisiter's cousin's, next door neighbor's kid overdosed on heroin? poor lad. he shouldn't have been stupid enough to take it in the first place. "

Bottom line the government should let people put whatever they want to into their own body. But that does not mean that the rest of us should have to pay for that persons treatment for addiction.

Personally I feel that a strategy of harm reduction is almost always better than outright prohibition. Plus, I figure there are pot users out there who want to smoke just as much as I want to go down to the range and shoot. Therefore I can't in good conscience be against that.

For the sake of argument though: Do you not think one of the duties of government is to protect us from things that might harm us? Also, from what I read the addictiveness of marijuana is still a matter of debate.

Also, from what I read the addictiveness of marijuana is still a matter of debate.

I'm pretty sure medical journals have a leg up on High Times in this matter. Evolution and global warming are matters of "debate" too. Funny how a political issue can turn any ubiquitous scientific finding into a contentious debate.

Grignard,

The duty of government is to provide a loose frame work of laws that allow a society to function provide for basic services, such as a mechanism to enforce those laws(police), emrgency services (fire and rescue), protection from outright aggression (the military for international matters, police for domestic). The government should allow for the maximum freedom possible while maintaining an orderly functioning society. (ideally). The government should not be responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.

Alcohol is legal. The majority of the population uses it responsibly. Same with firearms. There will always be idiots. The government should be concerned with protecting the responsible people from the idiots, not protecting the idiots from themselves. If someone drives while intoxicated, and becomes a threat ot others, lock them up. If someone shoots someone, lock them up or execute them.

post edited to indicate it was addressed to grignard.

Mango wrote:The duty of government is to provide a loose frame work of laws that allow a society to function provide for basic services, such as a mechanism to enforce those laws(police), emrgency services (fire and rescue), protection from outright aggression (the military for international matters, police for domestic). The government should allow for the maximum freedom possible while maintaining an orderly functioning society. (ideally). The government should not be responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.

Alcohol is legal. The majority of the population uses it responsibly. Same with firearms. There will always be idiots. The government should be concerned with protecting the responsible people from the idiots, not protecting the idiots from themselves. If someone drives while intoxicated, and becomes a threat ot others, lock them up. If someone shoots someone, lock them up or execute them.

That is a libertarian interpretation of the duty of government. Actually, not truly that, as a pure economically liberal point of view would be to privatize emergency and protective services.

You can also view society as a sort of collective organism, where you could draw an analogy of individuals making up collective organism of the state, much like cells make up your body. Therefore the government would want to ensure the health and morality of the "organism" by insuring that all the units of society work toward a common goal.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Greebynog wrote:I'm yet to hear one convincing argument against the legalization of marijuana, anyone care to proffer one?

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

This statement is based on....? (Just remember annecdotal evidence is not evidence)

ShumaGorath wrote:It's an addictive substance that significantly reduces capability, has longterm consequences that are much more than a smokescreen, and is a cheap alternative to actually improving your situation in real ways.

Again, care to provide any facts to back up your argument? Marijuana, as I've stated numerous times is not addictive.

ShumaGorath wrote: It parallels well to alcohol, which accounts for many thousands of deaths every year, millions of destroyed lives, and a significant cost to the taxpayer.

There has never been a single death from marijuana. The lethal dose is far more than any human could consume.

ShumaGorath wrote:The only difference being we can't retroactively ban alcohol and pot is banned now.

Why is banning alcohol desirable? Yes, it damages people and society. What kind of world would it be if we couldn't do anything that wasn't good for us? Enjoy your daily celery.

ShumaGorath wrote:As for the people that think making drugs illegal doesn't work.. Well I suggest you all do a little bit of research back to the 70's, 40's and 19th century. Virtually every drug substance that was made illegal after a period of legality had its use severely reduced when it was made illegal. Just because there is no modern parallel (because people understand what drugs are now and why they are to be outlawed) doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

Criminalzing people for doing something relatively harmless is ridiculous. Yes, usage goes down under prohabition, but other far worse things take hold. Organized crime for one.

ShumaGorath wrote:The same argument could be stated about the war on car accidents. Why do we even still enforce speed limits? People die anyway, clearly it isn't working.

Because speeding endangers other people. I would have thought that was obvious.

I prefer the idea that the governments job is to protect its citizens from things that it can't protect itself from.

People are stupid and can't really make decisions for themselves collectively. People do not easily resist addictive substances.


Therefore addictive substances should be made illegal by the government.

Right, last time Shuma, read this really slowly.

Marijuana is not physically addictive.

Greebynog wrote:Right, last time Shuma, read this really slowly.

Marijuana is not physically addictive.

Do you have a source saying it isn't addictive?

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just anecdotal crap?

I've been around the block, worked in the kitchen for 7+ years, I'm currently a Graphic Designer and Print technologies manager.

I've been/known and been surrounded by 'pot heads' my entire adult life. 99% of them are hard working, good citizens who do their job, then go home and relax in their preffered way. A large percentage of the U.S. population recreationally or medicenally uses Mary Jane, it's been that way for years, and isn't about to change.

I find your comment to be ignorant, lacking solid analysis, and boderline pejorative.

I guess they should ban wargaming. Do we not all continually waste money and time on something that is ultimately useless?


^^^You just lambasted him for using anecdotal evidence then turned around and used the same argument.

@avantgarde: Word, when I start on an army building project I practically get twitches if i'm not working on some aspect of it.

Grignard: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

There's one for starters.

I'll have a look for more.

Edited to address Grignard.

You should try listening to "Love Line" when a caller that smokes weed on a regular basis calls in....the doctor spots it right away...within the first 10 seconds. You know why...cuz weed causes permanent mental damage....slows down your thinking and speach permanently....almost to a crawl. Not just while your on it....but permanently. The doctor can spot this cuz its just so obvious...ive gotten to the point where i can as well just from listening to the show for so long. It was the weed smokers weeks to get out a sentence or a thought. People that say theres no eveidence that there is anything harmful about weed are in denial and just stupid.

edit: and LOL at the people saying POT isnt addictive....just wow...man denial is a hard thing to get past.

LOL OMG are you citing 'Love Line' as scientific proof that weed damages your brain?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Greebynog wrote:Grignard: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

There's one for starters.

I'll have a look for more.

Edited to address Grignard.

Doesn't that negate you're argument that marijuana is not addictive? It may be the least, but least addictive still equals addictive to some extent.

brad3104 wrote:You should try listening to "Love Line" when a caller that smokes weed on a regular basis calls in....the doctor spots it right away...within the first 10 seconds. You know why...cuz weed causes permanent mental damage....slows down your thinking and speach permanently....almost to a crawl. Not just while your on it....but permanently. The doctor can spot this cuz its just so obvious...ive gotten to the point where i can as well just from listening to the show for so long. It was the weed smokers weeks to get out a sentence or a thought. People that say theres no eveidence that there is anything harmful about weed are in denial and just stupid.

Again, stereotypes. You show me one person who conforms to it, I'll show you one who doesn't. You really aren't even making a serious attempt at rational discussion here are you?

barlio wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Grignard: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

There's one for starters.

I'll have a look for more.

Edited to address Grignard.

Doesn't that negate you're argument that marijuana is not addictive? It may be the least, but least addictive still equals addictive to some extent.

A fair point.

As I said, I'll find more sources, that was the first one I stumbled upon. I clumsily said 'not addictive' earlier, when I should have used the more correct 'not physically addictive', which I switched to later after realising my mistake. Anything can be psychologically addictive; sex, food, blankets. Should we ban them?

SsevenN wrote:LOL OMG are you citing 'Love Line' as scientific proof that weed damages your brain?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Umm who said anything about scientific proof? i dont need to prove anything...because im not an idiot...and i dont smoke weed...i have nothing to prove to anyone. Its the people that are addicted to weed...that constantly need to prove and lie about how weed is just like water with munchie dust in it....get over yourself. last time i checked...the docotr on the show is real...and more well known/respected in his field...than any doctor you could mention.

edit: @greeby im not going to waist more than 2 minutes of my time trying to prove anything to you. Keep smoking weed...stay in denail...lol have a nice life. The facts are out there....you and the rest of the weed smokers just cant accept them.

Grignard wrote:

Mango wrote:The duty of government is to provide a loose frame work of laws that allow a society to function provide for basic services, such as a mechanism to enforce those laws(police), emrgency services (fire and rescue), protection from outright aggression (the military for international matters, police for domestic). The government should allow for the maximum freedom possible while maintaining an orderly functioning society. (ideally). The government should not be responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.

Alcohol is legal. The majority of the population uses it responsibly. Same with firearms. There will always be idiots. The government should be concerned with protecting the responsible people from the idiots, not protecting the idiots from themselves. If someone drives while intoxicated, and becomes a threat ot others, lock them up. If someone shoots someone, lock them up or execute them.

That is a libertarian interpretation of the duty of government. Actually, not truly that, as a pure economically liberal point of view would be to privatize emergency and protective services.

You can also view society as a sort of collective organism, where you could draw an analogy of individuals making up collective organism of the state, much like cells make up your body. Therefore the government would want to ensure the health and morality of the "organism" by insuring that all the units of society work toward a common goal.

The main difference between a "collective organism" and a society, is that a bunch of cells are incapable of sentient thought. A society is made up of members who are. A societies common goal is preservation and perpetuation of the society. A loose framework provides better flexibility than a rigid overly regulated society. A government that "ensures" the health, morality, and goals of a society is a dictatorship. By "ensuring" ie making sure of a persons health or morality or goals, you are making decisions for a person and not letting them make decisions for themselves. A person learns lifes lessons better if they must suffer the consequences of thier decisions. Make a bad health decision? Deal with your poor health yourself.

You made an assumption. I did not say that I am a pure economic libertarian. For example, if police and protective concerns are handled by private security forces, then the state no longer has a monopoly on legitimate use of force within that society, and the society will fragment.

Better evidence: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Marijuana_is_not_addictive

Brad, your mind is clearly already made up, and you have nothing to add to an intelligent discussion. How ironic, the 'idiot' pot smoker being more articulate than clean and sober you.

Ever had a beer Brad?

brad3104 wrote:

SsevenN wrote:LOL OMG are you citing 'Love Line' as scientific proof that weed damages your brain?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Umm who said anything about scientific proof? i dont need to prove anything...because im not an idiot...and i dont smoke weed...i have nothing to prove to anyone. Its the people that are addicted to weed...that constantly need to prove and lie about how weed is just like water with munchie dust in it....get over yourself. last time i checked...the docotr on the show is real...and more well known/respected in his field...than any doctor you could mention.

You are commiting a logical fallacy.

You say that weed is bad, and you don't need to show HOW you know weed is bad, because you know it is. Seems pretty idiotic to me.

Now if you had any kind of study, or fact set that showed detremental effects of habitual Mary Jane use, through a controlled test enviorment I would be more inclined to listen to your opinions. If you had any kind of data to support your assertations you might come off a little less pejorative.

But forming an opinion with nothing but anecdotal evidence from listening to a bunch of tripe like 'love line' doesn't build a foundation for anything, except for formulating ignorant opinions.

Greebynog wrote:Better evidence: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Marijuana_is_not_addictive

Brad, your mind is clearly already made up, and you have nothing to add to an intelligent discussion. How ironic, the 'idiot' pot smoker being more articulate than clean and sober you.

Ever had a beer Brad?

Using wiki as a source reference is hardly being more articulate and intelligent.

As this topic is starting to generate complaints I am going to lock it.

This thread is reopened as several users have requested it.

Everyone please remember to be polite no matter how your passions may boil.

OK, to those who think it's harmless...

You're idiots. My dad did it from the ages of 14-40 (i.e. until he found out he had lung and brain damage), and it was too late then. For those who say it's not addictive, you're really, really stupid. He did it at 14 to try and escape from his terrible upbringing, and even though he moved out of home at 16, he couldn't stop. Without it, he fell into depression and lethargy. He was arrested a lot for violent behaviour and being drunk/disorderly in public.

It affected his behaviour, turning him extremely violent. He was jailed for a total of 10 years for various assaults with his fists and sharp objects. He spent all his money on it and stole to get more.

In the end, after doing it one final time, he went berserk and tried to kill my family (including me, despite how much he loved me). He fled when he was injured leaving my mother and brother with minor injuries, but came back. This time, the police were waiting, but he fought like mad. One of them was forced to use a nearby carving knife to try and disable him, and in the end, accidentally slashed his neck open.

It is addictive and it does affect your behaviour. If he'd never done it, I would have had a normal life. I wouldn't have to be ashamed when I tell people about my dad and what he did. I could have been proud of him.

Thank you, and goodnight. Learn from this.

Was this before or after you shot a burglar and were shot in the chest ?

Most of my circle of friends have been smoking on or off for 20 years+ and none of us have ever murdered anyone or become psychotic. And you're seriously claiming that weed makes the majority of people violent are you, because I would suggest that most people's here experience of those who toke is them sitting quite still, giggling and,like, suddenly realising that,like, we, man, are, like all connected y'know...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

I used to work turn-arounds twice a week as well as attend class full time. I smoke weed because it helps me focus as I often draw or paint in five to eight hour stretches. I'm currently taking a double major at SCAD Atlanta. The problem with using stereotypes as an argument is that stereotypes are usually inaccurate.

As for the argument of weed being 20 times stronger today (or whatever the percentage being claimed is), how was this number reached? I remember hearing a while back about a study which made such a claim which arrived at their conclusion by asking dispensaries in Amsterdam what was most popular and tracking the potency over time. My comment is this: how does that indicate whether the weed itself was getting stronger and not simply reflect a change in customer preferences? Can anyone link a study?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

How many Grateful Dead albums are there ?

reds8n wrote:Was this before or after you shot a burglar and were shot in the chest ?

Most of my circle of friends have been smoking on or off for 20 years+ and none of us have ever murdered anyone or become psychotic. And you're seriously claiming that weed makes the majority of people violent are you, because I would suggest that most people's here experience of those who toke is them sitting quite still, giggling and,like, suddenly realising that,like, we, man, are, like all connected y'know...

Look you dill weed, my dad DIED because of weed. Do you think that's funny? Do you think I'd joke about my own father DYING because of something that the fuckwits of the world think is harmless? Drugs are nothing to laugh about; they kill you, and the laws have to be enforced tighter. Doing drugs should be just as punishable an offence as assault or robbery.

You realise that because of that filthy plant, I've grown up without a father figure? You know what I say? Shoot anyone who growns it. Yes, you heard me, if they're so damn eager to die, why don't we help them?

Why has this thread turned into the effects of canabis. IMO that's got nothing to do with whether it should be legalised. You know you can die by drinking too much toilet duck doesn't mean it needs to be banned.

If you must though: the physical effects of weed are not proven enough either way so theirs not much point arguing about it. The mental effects though are very clear, you get lazy, you don't do anything productive and theres always better things to be doing with your time. I spent most of my time in my final year of uni on it and I became the most lazy unmotivated fether on the planet, I can say that of a lot of other people I know as well. I don't bother with it now and feel a lot better for it.

But whatever it is it doesn't need banning. The worst harm weed can do is when its filling criminals pockets.

We are sorry that your father died young and you are left in difficult circumstances.

No-one intends any disrespect to your father's memory.

However, that does not give you the moral authority to try and stifle debate and insult other forum members.

Please try to moderate your language when posting in DakkaDakka.

The most harm it can do is fill pockets? What don't you get? If my dad never did that, he'd still be alive. I would have grown up with a normal family and we wouldn't have had to suffer for my father's stupidity in smoking the stuff in the first place. I've actually seen what it can do to people over time. It's terrifying.

Cheese Elemental wrote:The most harm it can do is fill pockets? What don't you get? If my dad never did that, he'd still be alive. I would have grown up with a normal family and we wouldn't have had to suffer for my father's stupidity in smoking the stuff in the first place. I've actually seen what it can do to people over time. It's terrifying.

To be honest I've never heard an example like yours cited to canabis intake. But I've heard a hell of a lot worse from alcohol abusers. (not to say that what you went through wasn't very difficult which i'm sure it was)

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Look you dill weed, my dad DIED because of weed. Do you think that's funny? Do you think I'd joke about my own father DYING because of something that the fuckwits of the world think is harmless? Drugs are nothing to laugh about; they kill you, and the laws have to be enforced tighter. Doing drugs should be just as punishable an offence as assault or robbery.

You realise that because of that filthy plant, I've grown up without a father figure? You know what I say? Shoot anyone who growns it. Yes, you heard me, if they're so damn eager to die, why don't we help them?

I neither believe you or particularly care to be blunt. Your dad had mental issues from a problematic childhood ( apparently) and had problems with substance abuse, this is no way indicative of the vast majority of people's experience with the substance in question. Your continued attempts to present yourself as the FONT OF ALL EXPERIENCE off of this, apparent, tragedy doesn't give your arguments any weight, not least as the vasat % of people who dabble or smoke do not go out and kill their families which pretty much negates your anecdote.

You also have no proof that the life of your father would have turned out differently if he hadn't smoked weed/or done anything differently instead.

People die from peanut allergies, are you saying we should ban nuts too ?

I think it is down to personal opinion.Maybe it might help for medical use,if in an controlled environment it might help help people suffering with cancer and such with pain relief.I do belive that we won't know though until a country accually does it and we see how a pot legal society runs.

reds8n wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Look you dill weed, my dad DIED because of weed. Do you think that's funny? Do you think I'd joke about my own father DYING because of something that the fuckwits of the world think is harmless? Drugs are nothing to laugh about; they kill you, and the laws have to be enforced tighter. Doing drugs should be just as punishable an offence as assault or robbery.

You realise that because of that filthy plant, I've grown up without a father figure? You know what I say? Shoot anyone who growns it. Yes, you heard me, if they're so damn eager to die, why don't we help them?

I neither believe you or particularly care to be blunt. Your dad had mental issues from a problematic childhood ( apparently) and had problems with substance abuse, this is no way indicative of the vast majority of people's experience with the substance in question. Your continued attempts to present yourself as the FONT OF ALL EXPERIENCE off of this, apparent, tragedy doesn't give your arguments any weight, not least as the vasat % of people who dabble or smoke do not go out and kill their families which pretty much negates your anecdote.

You also have no proof that the life of your father would have turned out differently if he hadn't smoked weed/or done anything differently instead.

People die from peanut allergies, are you saying we should ban nuts too ?

Can you ACTUALLY THINK of a reason WHY I WOULD LIE about him dying?

He didn't have mental problems because of his childhood, it was because of marijuana.

He had problems with substance abuse because using it IS SUBSTANCE ABUSE. It's killing yourself. I do NOT present myself as the font of all experience, I'm pointing out what I know and how I know it's right. I am NOT trying to get pity here. I'm warning you that if it's legalised, the death rate from drugs will soar and the life expectancy will drop. There is nothing good about it whatsoever.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Can you ACTUALLY THINK of a reason WHY I WOULD LIE about him dying?

He didn't have mental problems because of his childhood, it was because of marijuana.

He had problems with substance abuse because using it IS SUBSTANCE ABUSE. It's killing yourself. I do NOT present myself as the font of all experience, I'm pointing out what I know and how I know it's right. I am NOT trying to get pity here. I'm warning you that if it's legalised, the death rate from drugs will soar and the life expectancy will drop. There is nothing good about it whatsoever.

Other than your self admitted tendency to exaggerate or outright lie for "affect" or as well as do you mean ? It's almost like there's some moral at work here ....

"not because of his childhood"...hmmmm......

He did it at 14 to try and escape from his terrible upbringing, and even though he moved out of home at 16,

so he did have problems from his childhood then.... or is this more "exaggeration" ?

Using it is not substance abuse, using it excessively is. It's the difference between drinking and being a drunk.

As I pointed out you do not "know" that X caused Y anymore than you know what a witch your dad might have been anyway.

There's lots of good things about it, to an extent, that's why it's popular to use.

Countries that have legalised it don't have massively inflated death rates.

i'd vote to legalize it.
while i've known a few people that sucked at life that smoked, they generally did other substances also.
The straight up stoners, almost always had a job, and were generally nice folks to be around.

I've no problem with stoners, and i'm tired of seeing them getting busted for trying to relax after a long day or somesuch

Cheese Elemental wrote:
He didn't have mental problems because of his childhood, it was because of marijuana.

As someone with a history of drug abuse I respectfully disagree. I didn't come damn close to destroying my life snorting and popping pills because I was a happy person who just got happier doing it. I did drugs because I had an extremely lonely childhood and felt socially isolated. Getting high was easier then facing my demons. Drug abuse is often a manifestation of an underlying problem.

One of my best friend's parents have been smoking weed since the 70's. His dad owns a small construction company and his mom works at the humane society. Neither has ever been arrested and they life a perfectly normal life. Drug use is no guarantee that someone will destroy their life.

This thread is being locked down again because some seriously impolite behavior has occurred.