Having read quite a few threads on gun control here, I wondered what Dakkites' positions on legalisation of Cannabis where? Do you favour a complete ban, Amsterdam-style 'Tolerance-zones', or complete legalisation? Not looking for anyone to 'out' themselves as weed smokers necessarily - just thought it might be interesting!
For what it's worth, I believe legalistion could generate a large amount of revenue for the UK, and that use is so widespread that it wouldn't have that much of a negative impact on society. Alchohol is FAR more dangerous and causes many more social problems, in addition to costing the NHS an absolute fortune.
Legalise it, sell it with adequate warnings about any proven side effects and use the money to further investigate the possible side effects. With present information it's no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.
The only reason it's not already legal is because the press have a field day every time the class of it is moved up or down the scale.
Legalize it now! We need to tax it and start growing hemp. Hemp can be used in all sorts of things, it really is a wonderful material that we're just ignoring. That and they can also reap the rewards from taxing stoners and taking money out of the pockets of criminals. I recently watched a documentary that claimed tobacco kills more people in the US than guns, alchahol and marijuana combined! I'll have to go check on that statistic however.
I belive marijauna should be legal,like alcohol it's "dangers" come from over indulgence.
And,yes legalization could generate a huge ammount of revenue,as well as help in the prevention of deforrestation/polution, as hemp papper products are cleaner and cheaper to produce and yeild a higher output than chopping down trees.
FITZZ wrote: I belive marijauna should be legal,like alcohol it's "dangers" come from over indulgence.
And,yes legalization could generate a huge ammount of revenue,as well as help in the prevention of deforrestation/polution, as hemp papper products are cleaner and cheaper to produce and yeild a higher output than chopping down trees.
QFT
Also, legalizing it would mean it would be produced and sold by legitimate companies rather than street dealers, who sometimes lace it with cocaine or other "hard drugs" to make it more addictive.
FITZZ wrote: I belive marijauna should be legal,like alcohol it's "dangers" come from over indulgence.
And,yes legalization could generate a huge ammount of revenue,as well as help in the prevention of deforrestation/polution, as hemp papper products are cleaner and cheaper to produce and yeild a higher output than chopping down trees.
QFT
Also, legalizing it would mean it would be produced and sold by legitimate companies rather than street dealers, who sometimes lace it with cocaine or other "hard drugs" to make it more addictive.
I like the idea of our government making money off of legal ganja, but in 10 years of smoking the stuff, and buying it from street dealers, (hell I've been one of those street dealers), I have never bought laced weed. I'ts not very cost effective, hard drugs are waaaay more expensive than weed. Then again I probably don't live in your city and mine is rather small. But in my neck of the woods laced weed is a scary myth teachers use to keep you away.
The problem with legalising it is that it will probably end up more expensive than it is currently on the street.
Just look at how much tax they have on tobacco to see how it will go.
Not to mention that very few places currently produce it legally, meaning that in order to get a legal supply to match current demand (assuming that it is as cheap or cheaper than "illegal" versions), we would need to get busy on building some weed farms. Which would be open to dope scrumping
It's already the case that cigarettes are being sold by dealers in some places to bypass increasingly excessive taxes. You can't just tax something an infinite amount and expect no black market to offer a more reasonable deal.
FITZZ wrote: I belive marijauna should be legal,like alcohol it's "dangers" come from over indulgence.
And,yes legalization could generate a huge ammount of revenue,as well as help in the prevention of deforrestation/polution, as hemp papper products are cleaner and cheaper to produce and yeild a higher output than chopping down trees.
QFT
Also, legalizing it would mean it would be produced and sold by legitimate companies rather than street dealers, who sometimes lace it with cocaine or other "hard drugs" to make it more addictive.
I like the idea of our government making money off of legal ganja, but in 10 years of smoking the stuff, and buying it from street dealers, (hell I've been one of those street dealers), I have never bought laced weed. I'ts not very cost effective, hard drugs are waaaay more expensive than weed. Then again I probably don't live in your city and mine is rather small. But in my neck of the woods laced weed is a scary myth teachers use to keep you away.
I wouldn't know, I've never smoked it. I'm a military man, we get in huge fcking trouble if we get caught with illegal drugs of any kind.
The cost of tabacco is in many cases regulated by the tabacco companies,just look at the price diffrences in a pack of Mavericks compared to a pack of Marlborros...then the "sin" tax is added,one would hope this sort of nonsense would be avoided with legalised marijauna.
Also,you would expect a certian amount of security to be present at any Marijauna farm,but if some of the product gets "scrumped" so be it,the benifits still outwiegh the loss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's already the case that cigarettes are being sold by dealers in some places to bypass increasingly excessive taxes. You can't just tax something an infinite amount and expect no black market to offer a more reasonable deal.
SilverMK2 wrote:The problem with legalising it is that it will probably end up more expensive than it is currently on the street.
Just look at how much tax they have on tobacco to see how it will go.
Not to mention that very few places currently produce it legally, meaning that in order to get a legal supply to match current demand (assuming that it is as cheap or cheaper than "illegal" versions), we would need to get busy on building some weed farms. Which would be open to dope scrumping
I'd be glad to pay $40 for a dub instead of the usual $20 if it met I could toke when in where I wanted. I'm willing to pay more to lose the fear, paranoia, and social stigma that comes along with my favorite past time, ( cops are scary when your stoned! ). That and it could be put towards schools and roads etc. (although I'm sure plenty of it would be fattening someones pocket).
@ lord of ghosts: why is it just fine for medical users? What's wrong with using mariuana casually? Is it worse than someone drinking alcohol? I'd like to understand your reasoning. As for me I use it casually and I find it evens me out with my bipolar disorder.
Norwulf wrote:I'd be glad to pay $40 for a dub instead of the usual $20 if it met I could toke when in where I wanted.
The thing is that because of the effects of the drug, I doubt very much that you could smoke it in public. Many people would be more than happy if regular smoking was banned from pretty much all public places, so I really don't think you will be welcome smoking weed in the high street
Norwulf wrote:I'd be glad to pay $40 for a dub instead of the usual $20 if it met I could toke when in where I wanted.
The thing is that because of the effects of the drug, I doubt very much that you could smoke it in public. Many people would be more than happy if regular smoking was banned from pretty much all public places, so I really don't think you will be welcome smoking weed in the high street
I dunno lol. I smoke weed in public all the time. It's just that I have to be careful and pretend it's a ciggarette, you can walk right past a cop with a "sneak-a-toke" as long as your ballsy and careful.
Norwulf wrote:I dunno lol. I smoke weed in public all the time. It's just that I have to be careful and pretend it's a ciggarette, you can walk right past a cop with a "sneak-a-toke" as long as your ballsy and careful.
Do American police have no sense of smell then?
I personally am for the banning of all smokables. The medicinal pain killing properties of weed can be extracted and applied far more reliably (and with less damage to the lungs) than smoking it.
Non-weedlike hemp exists and would be fine for replacing our reliance on chopping down trees for everything.
Alcohol is more dangerous arguably than mary jane when you consume vast amounts but everyone I know who started smoking weed were back off their effing asses after a few hits from a bowl but the first time consumers of alcohol still required a 6 pack in them to be intoxicated.
IME marijuana will feth you up faster than alcohol will (not to mention the stoners that we used to get in one of the grocery stores I worked the late shift seemed to have not a single brain cell left. Drunks couldn't walk, the hard core potheads carried on conversations with plants and cereal boxes).
Not to mention alcohol when consumed in small quantities is a lot safer than any joint (a glass of wine a day is a lot healthier than a joint by a long shot).
Norwulf wrote:Wow! Sounds like an enchanted world of fun and frolic shuma.
It's a theoretical world where people don't drink two boxes of natty ice then think turning the light switch on and off is the most brilliant thing ever. It's also never going to happen because people are no good at finding happiness in any fashion beyond burning or drinking something that gives it to them free of effort. On a related note I'm probably going to be dead drunk by midnight tonight.
Would that be banning Marijauna or tabacco smoking?
Both, alcohol as well.
Ahhh,I see..well then I suppose I should thank my heidonistic "gods' that you've yet to begin any serious political asperations,and that I will long since have shuffled off this mortal coil,thanks to drink and tabacco,by the time president Shuma is elected.
Would that be banning Marijauna or tabacco smoking?
Both, alcohol as well.
Ahhh,I see..well then I suppose I should thank my heidonistic "gods' that you've yet to begin any serious political asperations,and that I will long since have shuffled off this mortal coil,thanks to drink and tabacco,by the time president Shuma is elected.
I'm unelectable in a democracy. My platform would involve changing too many thing. I'll certainly be there to take advantage during the collapse though.
1. alchohol is no where near as dangerous
2.weed cause massive long term effects and also is the cause of many of lifes problems
3. people would still use dealers as le4gally produced and properly controlled substencies could nevert match the prices of illegal substencies
Would that be banning Marijauna or tabacco smoking?
Both, alcohol as well.
Ahhh,I see..well then I suppose I should thank my heidonistic "gods' that you've yet to begin any serious political asperations,and that I will long since have shuffled off this mortal coil,thanks to drink and tabacco,by the time president Shuma is elected.
I'm unelectable in a democracy. My platform would involve changing too many thing. I'll certainly be there to take advantage during the collapse though.
Well,if I'm still alive and kicking...or not to drunk when that collapse comes I suppose I'll be thankful I'm heavily armed,The Peoples Army of the First Shuma Republic has to have some sort of enemies.
1. alchohol is no where near as dangerous
2.weed cause massive long term effects and also is the cause of many of lifes problems
3. people would still use dealers as le4gally produced and properly controlled substencies could nevert match the prices of illegal substencies
Alcohol is no where near as dangerous?!?!?! reallly? Whats your source on that? I know it's not personal experiance. What are these massive long term affects?
I've seen lots of fights start because people were too drunk, I've seen lots of furniture get destroyed because someone was too drunk. I've seen a drunk driver plow into a tree. The only thing I ever see destroyed by someone under the influence of marijuana, is a bag of doritos.
If you look on the link that I posted earlier, on page 1. You can compare for yourself how many people die from marijuana and how many die from alcohol.
I've seen marijuana slow peoples reaction times just like alcohol does.
I've seen hardcore stoners that smoked daily for over a decade become blithering idiots that speak like they are stoned constantly and have the intelligence of a 5yo (and they were normal before they decided weed was more important than life) not to mention there are over 400 toxic chemicals in your typical joint. A glass of wine daily or a couple of martinis is a HELL of a lot healthier in the long run than smoking even a single joint is.
I've also been at parties where guns were pulled because someone buying weed felt they were getting ripped off. I've never seen guns pulled because someone felt that they were being ripped off over a keg of beer.
Alcohol when drank responsibly is not harmful. There is no "safe" amount of weed that can be smoked.
Not to mention, excluding banned establishments I can sit in a room full of smokers and the only thing that will happen is I'll get a sore throat from it. If I sat in a room full of people smoking weed I'll get contact buzz from it and get as fethed up as they are.
Weed should not be made legal because if I go to a bar that hasn't banned smoking yet I don't want to walk out stoned off my ass. I don't even get intoxicated if I go out anymore. I'd rather not have a DUI on my record.
Yes weed will slow your reaction times, (i don't suggest trying to box someone while stoned). I'd like to see some definitive proof that there are 400 toxic chemicals in your typical joint, maybe from the paper perhaps? As for someone pulling out a gun over a weed deal, then wouldn't legalizing solve that problem? Instead of street dealers, you would be buying your ganja from a pharmacy or smoke shop hopefully. There is indeed a "safe" amount of weed that can be smoked, no one has ever been recorded dying as a result of smoking marijuana in 5000 years. As for the contact high thing, my mom smoked weed around me up until I tryed it myself and I never recall getting a contact high, I imagine it takes quite a bit. Now pot is deffinitly not for kids, and all things should be taken in moderation. As long as people apply common sense and don't get stoned before work or before driving I don't see how it could affect society negatively. You know either way, legal or not there are stoners among you, they cook your food when you go out to eat, they make the music you listen to, they draw the art you enjoy and they teach in schools. They're doctors, and lawyers and garbage men, and plumbers and even cops.
(man it's wierd arguing with fateweaver. That doesn't happen much to me)
1. alchohol is no where near as dangerous 2.weed cause massive long term effects and also is the cause of many of lifes problems 3. people would still use dealers as le4gally produced and properly controlled substencies could nevert match the prices of illegal substencies
What? You have no idea what you're talking about. Biologically alcohol is far more destructive to the human body and brain that cannabis.
Alcohol when drank responsibly is not harmful. There is no "safe" amount of weed that can be smoked.
You as well don't seem to understand the biology that backs both drugs. Neither is inconsequential, but alcohol does far more damage psychologically and physically in a much shorter amount of time.
Well,if I'm still alive and kicking...or not to drunk when that collapse comes I suppose I'll be thankful I'm heavily armed,The Peoples Army of the First Shuma Republic has to have some sort of enemies.
Maybe. When I come around to rescue this world you'll have that choice.
I dunno, Americans seem to elect a lot of hypocrites.
It also has a lot of people in it that don't know what the word hypocrite means. You for instance.
ShumaGorath wrote:You probably didn't catch my edit before posting that. You don't know what the word means, I'm not being hypocritical in my stance.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's a theoretical world where people don't drink two boxes of natty ice then think turning the light switch on and off is the most brilliant thing ever. It's also never going to happen because people are no good at finding happiness in any fashion beyond burning or drinking something that gives it to them free of effort. On a related note I'm probably going to be dead drunk by midnight tonight.
Hypocritical . . . check, given over to unfounded mudslinging . . . check, bad memory . . . check; yep, you have American politician written all over you.
Although I can't find an up to date list from a more reputable site (mostly because I can't be bothered), this gives the relative toxicity and addictiveness of some drugs.
Let's try something out. How is espousing an ideal upon which something is banned while at the same time not refusing to partake in that item hypocritical?
Lets see how I could make it so.
I could A: Campaign for it's removal (doesn't look like thats happening) I could B: Judge others for it's use (nope, no disparaging remarks about the state of others concerning alcohol or cannabis (other than the light switch joke, but that happened a bit back and it was annoying at the time)) I could C: State that there is a moral indecency inherent in drinking or smoking (nope, none of that either).
So I'm not making a moral stand, I'm not being judgmental, and I'm not actively attempting to curb the use of such substances. What am I doing then? Well the answer to that may be hard for you to understand. I'm professing an ideal, one by which people can exist free of the influence of unnatural substances with addictive qualities. This is similar to the stance of believing that violence is bad while still enjoying an action movie. It's a stance predicated on realism, and not hyperbolic whining.
given over to unfounded mudslinging
Only where deserved.
you have American politician written all over you.
Except the part where I'm a transhumanist that would ideally want to impose a benign dictatorship.
This is what I was talking about just a minute ago:
"Cannabinoids have a remarkable safety record, particularly when compared to other therapeutically active substances. Most significantly, the consumption of marijuana – regardless of quantity or potency -- cannot induce a fatal overdose. According to a 1995 review prepared for the World Health Organization, “There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by … users.”
Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.
A glass of whine a day is good for circulatory system.
I have gotten contact buzz being around tokers.
You honestly think people will stop buying from drug dealers if Phillip Morris put joints into a fancy box like Marlboros, advertised on TV and charged $100 for 10 joints (I know street value is different all over but not sure exactly what it's worth here per joint so I'm just pulling that number out my ass). If it's way OTT I'll adjust it down some.
I mean, most of the soldiers I know will buy cigs on base because it is so much cheaper than buying them from a convenience store down the road.
Legalizng it won't deter crime. Alcohol is legal and like so many pro-pot smokers out there say fights and DUI's occur because of that.
@Fateweaver: I think the assumption, and I don't know if it is correct, is that legalization would dramatically drop the price. The main problem would be offering a better product than what could be home grown. As far as I know, there is no extensive knowledge base for efficiently growing tobacco in your closet. But the knowledge is certainly there when it comes to pot. So would a corp like Philip Morris be able to compete with your own stuff. Probably. But what about current pot-guru aficianados who grow "the best stuff"? My guess is that they might get bought out. But not being a smoker (of weed), I admit to having no first-hand knowledge of these things.
Legalise it, put a slight tax on it, generate revenue (California has done this to help with budgets iirc) everybodies happy.
Except for the fun killers. Stupid fun killers.
However, there obviously need to be laws in place if it is legalised.
1. If you smoke weed while operating a vehicle, you will be arrested.
2. You cannot just light up whenever or wherever the hell you feel like it. Ie, a school or nursery etc.
3. You may grow your own, however, a permit must be obtained for how much you plain on growing.
Manchu wrote:@Fateweaver: I think the assumption, and I don't know if it is correct, is that legalization would dramatically drop the price. The main problem would be offering a better product than what could be home grown. As far as I know, there is no extensive knowledge base for efficiently growing tobacco in your closet. But the knowledge is certainly there when it comes to pot. So would a corp like Philip Morris be able to compete with your own stuff. Probably. But what about current pot-guru aficianados who grow "the best stuff"? My guess is that they might get bought out. But not being a smoker (of weed), I admit to having no first-hand knowledge of these things.
Or they'd get shut right down for producing a product without proper safety and health standards/testing in place.
@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.
Fateweaver wrote:A glass of whine a day is good for circulatory system.
I have gotten contact buzz being around tokers.
Placebo effect, or you were in a hotbox, one of the two. If you were in a hotbox, while your buddies were toking up, it is your fault that you got stoned.
You honestly think people will stop buying from drug dealers if Phillip Morris put joints into a fancy box like Marlboros, advertised on TV and charged $100 for 10 joints (I know street value is different all over but not sure exactly what it's worth here per joint so I'm just pulling that number out my ass).
No offense, but your anecdotal circumstances, fail to bring anything that everyone here has not already heard. And to the point, they will buy from stores, there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that there are black market substances, being sold cheaper than their legal counterparts.
I mean, most of the soldiers I know will buy cigs on base because it is so much cheaper than buying them from a convenience store down the road.
Legalizng it won't deter crime. Alcohol is legal and like so many pro-pot smokers out there say fights and DUI's occur because of that.
Legalizing it will deter crime, do some freaking research. The amount of people jailed for petty possession is absolutely ridiculous. It is a burden on the system, that ruins many peoples lives. Not all crimes work like murder, or theft, these are crimes of ideology, they are crimes because someone tells me so. Not because they are actually criminal. Someone smoking a joint, has not committed any crime in my eyes. If that joint were to be regulated, you could effectively cut down on the amount of crime associated with it.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.
The substances are addictive. The ideal can not exist before the law, or some other form of method prohibiting it (such as the cocaine vaccine being tested now).
Ladies and gentlemen, raise your glasses (send the Jack around again, can't get dead drunk off water) to professing an ideal.
It's not my fault I had to break down simple english for you to understand it.
Legalizing it will deter crime, do some freaking research. The amount of people jailed for petty possession is absolutely ridiculous. It is a burden on the system, that ruins many peoples lives. Not all crimes work like murder, or theft, these are crimes of ideology, they are crimes because someone tells me so. Not because they are actually criminal. Someone smoking a joint, has not committed any crime in my eyes. If that joint were to be regulated, you could effectively cut down on the amount of crime associated with it.
You would also greatly increase safety, while helping to better stabilize south america. All at the cost of a dramatic uptick in usage statistics across all all demographics.
Manchu wrote:@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.
You don't grow tomatoes in your garden and sell them in back alleys, do you?
Fateweaver wrote:A glass of whine a day is good for circulatory system.
I have gotten contact buzz being around tokers.
You honestly think people will stop buying from drug dealers if Phillip Morris put joints into a fancy box like Marlboros, advertised on TV and charged $100 for 10 joints (I know street value is different all over but not sure exactly what it's worth here per joint so I'm just pulling that number out my ass). If it's way OTT I'll adjust it down some.
I mean, most of the soldiers I know will buy cigs on base because it is so much cheaper than buying them from a convenience store down the road.
Legalizng it won't deter crime. Alcohol is legal and like so many pro-pot smokers out there say fights and DUI's occur because of that.
Your partially right, legalizing it won't completely deter crime. Some folks will buy from dealers even if weed gets legalized. I imagine even more people will grow it themselves, (it's not all that hard). I myself will buy legitimately just so I can support it. Even if I had to cut down drastically it would be no problem if it meant I could buy my smoke at wal-mart instead of a back alley. I think they outta just treat it like alcohol, give people a dui if the're driving stoned, and make it so you gotta be X years old to buy it. Your wine is good for your circulatory system, that's good. My weed is good for my bipolar disorder, its good for cancer, it's good for glaucoma, medical marijuana has lots of unexplored and under-explored uses. Everyone reading this thread should look at the links Wrex posted. And since people have been using it casually for thousands of years, why not allow them to? Do we really need more people in prison? Should we not use hemp for paper, soap, rope, fabric, plastic, biofuel, etc. because you can get high of certain types of the plant? Do we really need more laws and rules to restrict us? More government and beuracracy and overcrowded prisons?
Even if I never get to see ganja legalized for my own casual uses, there are a lot of things this modest little plant can offer us. At the very least it makes no sense why it isn't being prescribed more, or why we aren't using hemp paper.
Manchu wrote:@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.
You don't grow tomatoes in your garden and sell them in back alleys, do you?
Manchu wrote:@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.
You don't grow tomatoes in your garden and sell them in back alleys, do you?
Shuma wrote:All at the cost of a dramatic uptick in usage statistics across all demographics.
I fail to see the logic in that. I don't expect the number to stay stagnant, but how many people are now drinking Absinthe in Cali because it is legal?
One could put forward an argument that the 'pot culture' at large would increase the numbers substantially, but I still cannot imagine enourmous amounts of people just up and becoming stoners. Even if everyone in the U.S. got up after pot was legalized, and smoked one joint amongst friends, not much would change at all. The majority of those people would not enjoy smoking pot, just as many pot smokers do not enjoy drinking alcohol, even though they tried it only once.
In all honesty I think the minority parties of the BC Gov't had the right idea when they considered legalizing it to help the economy. Dope isn't as dangerous as the silver-sober BC Liberal party would have people believe. Let's not forget that most of these guys are preaching the so-called 'ill-effects' without any experience with the stuff themselves. Typical. Meanwhile, the people with some sense have come up with a viable solution to the legalization woes.
Permits - these can be sold at a very small price by the Gov't to anyone wishing to grow. These permits would allow a Government Health Official to inspect the grower's operations, and make sure they're conducting their operation properly, and that they aren't spiking their product with other drugs (A common problem in places like East Hastings in Vancouver).
No home-run stores - Weed can be sold to smoke shops and liquor stores, but home operations could be made illegal, to help prevent kids from buying it.
Driving/Operating Restrictions - Same story as booze. If you're stoned, you're a risk on the road or in the workplace whether you admit it or not. Not as large a risk as a drunk driver/operator, but still a risk. Just copy and paste drunk driving laws, but change "drunk" to "stoned". If you get pulled over and you have bloodshot eyes and smell like weed, the cops will take you in and your license gets revoked.
Age limit - same as booze. People go to the store to buy weed, they have to show ID. Like booze, kids can still get a fake or a boot and getahold of it, but it would help take it out of kids' hands if that's what they're worried about.
Honestly I just don't see what governments are so up in arms about over the subject. It's no more harmful than alcohol, as was pointed out, and that's fine and legal. I think dropping the laws against it would cut down on a tonne of drug-related crime. For one thing, nations could make a lot of money importing and exporting the stuff. And at this point they can't really afford to let any potential cash go.
I imagine even more people will grow it themselves, (it's not all that hard).
I don't see why. Unless the cost is prohibitive I doubt you would see much of a home grown market. It's not the most easy plant to grow.
Most of the market is homegrown, most of the weed I buy comes from Canada, Oregon or right here in Washington. They usually grow it in basements, there are warehouses and traincars where people do grow operations as well. I happen to know at least 5 different growers in my area. It's not exactly something you just try to do without knowing what your doing. But it's not rocket science.
I fail to see the logic in that. I don't expect the number to stay stagnant, but how many people are now drinking Absinthe in Cali because it is legal?
Absinthe is just a "more advanced" form of drinking. Something with an established legal market. Alternatives have and will exist to it that will lesson its effect on the demographics it targets. Pot does not have this issue. It would be released legally into a vacuum. People smoking already would continue, and anyone that has ever wanted too or been tempted, but stayed away due to illegality would likely start. As it's an addictive substance with a primary market not already involved in it's addiction a large uptick in use would likely be sustained in the primary demographic that had not already participated.
Legalizing absinthe: People already drinking will drink it.
Legalizing Pot: No previous legal alternative equates to a large increase in usage.
Its an economic argument. Pot would flank an empty market and rapidly dominate it, absinthe was just one more product in the alcohol wars.
metallifan wrote:In all honesty I think the minority parties of the BC Gov't had the right idea when they considered legalizing it to help the economy. Dope isn't as dangerous as the silver-sober BC Liberal party would have people believe. Let's not forget that most of these guys are preaching the so-called 'ill-effects' without any experience with the stuff themselves. Typical. Meanwhile, the people with some sense have come up with a viable solution to the legalization woes.
Permits - these can be sold at a very small price by the Gov't to anyone wishing to grow. These permits would allow a Government Health Official to inspect the grower's operations, and make sure they're conducting their operation properly, and that they aren't spiking their product with other drugs (A common problem in places like East Hastings in Vancouver).
No home-run stores - Weed can be sold to smoke shops and liquor stores, but home operations could be made illegal, to help prevent kids from buying it.
Driving/Operating Restrictions - Same story as booze. If you're stoned, you're a risk on the road or in the workplace whether you admit it or not. Not as large a risk as a drunk driver/operator, but still a risk. Just copy and paste drunk driving laws, but change "drunk" to "stoned". If you get pulled over and you have bloodshot eyes and smell like weed, the cops will take you in and your license gets revoked.
Age limit - same as booze. People go to the store to buy weed, they have to show ID. Like booze, kids can still get a fake or a boot and getahold of it, but it would help take it out of kids' hands if that's what they're worried about.
Honestly I just don't see what governments are so up in arms about over the subject. It's no more harmful than alcohol, as was pointed out, and that's fine and legal. I think dropping the laws against it would cut down on a tonne of drug-related crime. For one thing, nations could make a lot of money importing and exporting the stuff. And at this point they can't really afford to let any potential cash go.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.
The substances are addictive. The ideal can not exist before the law, or some other form of method prohibiting it (such as the cocaine vaccine being tested now).
So then you're not merely professing the ideal, you're professing a desired government policy. Everyone who campaigns for a specific policy has an ideal they are attempting to reach through their advocacy, that's no defense against claims of hypocrisy being levied against them for engaging in acts they wish to see prohibited.
I hear this arguement a lot. Like I've said, I've been "testing" the drug out on myself for a long time now. I've never once heard of, nor experianced physical withdrawls from pot. Now mentally pot is addictive, hell yeah it's addictive! But it's exaclty in that same sense that TV is addictive, porn, video games and warhammer 40k are addictive. In fact I feel much more addicted to painting little models and playing zelda than weed. Perhaps that's why I bought nobz instead of a dub.
I'm not saying that from a stoner's persective either. Don't smoke anymore. Like most everyday people, I just see the sense in it.
Of course, if Gordon Campbell would rather pay off provincial debts by privating our lakes, rivers, and forests I guess that's how it is. Funny how we never see that money actually invested anywhere though...
Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.
The substances are addictive. The ideal can not exist before the law, or some other form of method prohibiting it (such as the cocaine vaccine being tested now).
So then you're not merely professing the ideal, you're professing a desired government policy. Everyone who campaigns for a specific policy has an ideal they are attempting to reach through their advocacy, that's no defense against claims of hypocrisy being levied against them for engaging in acts they wish to see prohibited.
Then I hope you don't ever go to a movie theatre, boxing match, or play a videogame. Because thats violence. It's not hypocritical to wish for a specific ideal and system of governance while personally existing in another. Communists aren't hypocrites for living in america and having currency based jobs. I live here, in the real world. Being willing to trade it for another doesn't mean I somehow begin to act like I already live there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:
Norwulf wrote: I agree with this post completely.
Because it's a good idea mebe?
I'm not saying that from a stoner's persective either. Don't smoke anymore. Like most everyday people, I just see the sense in it.
Of course, if Gordon Campbell would rather pay off provincial debts by privating our lakes, rivers, and forests I guess that's how it is. Funny how we never see that money actually invested anywhere though...
Actually my post didn't give an opinion on the subject. It just explained an economic and social principle behind another. I am against the legalization personally.
ShumaGorath wrote:Then I hope you don't ever go to a movie theatre, boxing match, or play a videogame. Because thats violence. It's not hypocritical to wish for a specific ideal and system of governance while personally existing in another. Communists aren't hypocrites for living in america and having currency based jobs. I live here, in the real world. Being willing to trade it for another doesn't mean I somehow begin to act like I already live there.
I can imagine Mark Sanford making similar arguments: "My fellow citizens, one of the reasons you elected me is because I am a proponent of strong family values. But this is the real world and in the real world, people cheat on their spouses. In the real world, elected officials use public funds to enjoy weekends in Brazil with their girlfriends, er, soulmates, I meant soulmates. Just because I cheated on my wife doesn't mean that I don't support the ideal of the family, itself grounded in monogamous fidelity, being the most fundamental unit of society."
As for seeing an action movie making me a hypocrite if I also profess non-violence, I will (despite the many, many assumptions required) accept that. All that means is that, by your own proposed standard, you're also a hypocrite for arguing for a return to prohibition while planning on getting "dead drunk" this very evening.
ShumaGorath wrote:Actually my post didn't give an opinion on the subject. It just explained an economic and social principle behind another. I am against the legalization personally.
I did notice that, but I wasn't referring to yours Shuma (Though I guess "Norwulf said" would point to that easily enough)
As for seeing an action movie making me a hypocrite if I also profess non-violence, I will (despite the many, many assumptions required) accept that. All that means is that, by your own proposed standard, you're also a hypocrite for arguing for a return to prohibition while planning on getting "dead drunk" this very evening.
Well, professing non violence then enjoying the spectacle of violence is about as hypocritical as what I am. So if we are accepting such a wide and toothless definition of hypocrite than I will agree. We are hypocrites. Glory to us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Actually my post didn't give an opinion on the subject. It just explained an economic and social principle behind another. I am against the legalization personally.
I did notice that, but I wasn't referring to yours Shuma (Though I guess "Norwulf said" would point to that easily enough)
The main points are:
1. non-intoxicating hemp is already grown for weething material and paper, so legalising weed wouldn't change that
2. medical marijuana is a joke if used by non-terminal patients, and THC can be extracted or produced and used in a nebuliser,
3. 'the sin tax' as someone put would always be needed due to the cost national health service, just like alcohol (at least in the UK)
4. but yes ciggeretes and alcohol are just as dangerous as weed, in many different ways.
5. cutting out the criminals serves no purpose as criminals are criminals and will find another illegal way to make money
i don't like smoking of any kind, but i also hate excessive drinking in people, especially drink drivers, they should get far greater punishments.
ShumaGorath wrote:So if we are accepting such a wide and toothless definition of hypocrite than I will agree.
Actually, this is the common definition. And it has very sharp teeth. As I'm sure you've noted, many a public figure has been shred to pieces by them but Americans seem to love (many of) them in any case. Pissing contest aside, my original comment was aimed at pointing this out in relation to your calling yourself "unelectable."
@bluntmandc: how is weed dangerous? I guess getting arrested can be dangerous. also I don't understand why using medical marijuana for non terminal patients is a joke.
Norwulf wrote:@bluntmandc: how is weed dangerous? I guess getting arrested can be dangerous. also I don't understand why using medical marijuana for non terminal patients is a joke.
He did little more than quote numerous politicians. There is a lack of substance to most of his claims.
I dont want to sound uncool or anything, i mean, i dont mind a wee bit of ganja every now and then, and obviously i know where you stand Alb, but didnt we just rebrand it as class B because it DID make people turn to drugs more readily?
I think its a big can of worms to open if we legalize it.
mattyrm wrote:but didnt we just rebrand it as class B because it DID make people turn to drugs more readily?
I've always wondered if marijuana is a considered a "gateway drug" because of its own chemical effects on a person's body or because of it's cultural/social status of being illegal but fairly common means that it is often the point of entry for most otherwise law abiding citizens into the world of criminal activities.
ShumaGorath wrote:So if we are accepting such a wide and toothless definition of hypocrite than I will agree.
Actually, this is the common definition. And it has very sharp teeth. As I'm sure you've noted, many a public figure has been shred to pieces by them but Americans seem to love (many of) them in any case. Pissing contest aside, my original comment was aimed at pointing this out in relation to your calling yourself "unelectable."
Oh, i thought this entire pissing contest was framed over an insult, rather than an acknowledgment of the fact that being a hypocrite is in many ways practically very difficult and sometimes even unavoidable.
mattyrm wrote:but didnt we just rebrand it as class B because it DID make people turn to drugs more readily?
I've always wondered if marijuana is a considered a "gateway drug" because of its own chemical effects on a person's body or because of it's cultural/social status of being illegal but fairly common means that it is often the point of entry for most otherwise law abiding citizens into the world of criminal activities.
I've never bought that arguement, yeah I'm biased and I have tried almost every other drug there is since trying pot. But I have known just as many many people who just stuck with pot and beer, and in the end I just smoke pot, rarely I'll have a beer or two. So I don't believe that, I think If your the kind of person who will try heroin, you'll try it before or after pot it's just a matter of which one is available first. Given that weed is the cheapest, easiest drug I can find, I'd say thats why people try it first.
Something I just remembered: salvia. It's legal here, you can buy it at head shops. Now if THAT s t is leagal I can't understand how weed isn't.
@Shuma: In my life, I could not avoid being called a hypocrite. But I like to think it's healthy for me to at least acknowledge that I am one from time to time.
@Shuma: Oh, no no no. Wasn't trying to insult you or reference your thoughts outside of this thread. Sorry for that!
@Norwulf: All I mean is, it's easy to rationalize breaking the law against buying/possessing/using weed because the law seems counterintuitive on its face to many people. And once you've broken one law regarding drug use, maybe it's easy to break another. Typical slippery slope argument, yes. But look at it logistically: once you hook up with smoking crowd and dealers to get weed, you're likely to be one step closer than before to being able to find that heroin. And it's probably easier for most 12-25 year olds to find a pot dealer than someone selling heroin, I'm guessing.
Norwulf wrote:Something I just remembered: salvia. It's legal here, you can buy it at head shops. Now if THAT s t is leagal I can't understand how weed isn't.
Because the effect wears off quickly.
No really, that's why. You don't stay high long enough to get far in a vehicle or pose much of a risk to anyone but yourself. It's a stupid defense, and it just shows that they won't legalize weed because it's taboo. Twofold because they did with Salvia exactly what I said they should do with weed.
Sometimes all you can do is shake your head at the stupidity of the people running our world.
Manchu wrote:But look at it logistically: once you hook up with smoking crowd and dealers to get weed, you're likely to be one step closer than before to being able to find that heroin.
I go to a party, in which I drink alcohol. At this party there happens to be an individual that is selling a whole mess of drugs, none of which I want any part of. If I were to be holding a joint, instead of a beer, and I were to be under the influence of either individually. Being drunk would make me more inclined to try something incredibly stupid. I have jumped off roofs while drunk, I have gotten in fights with bushes while drunk, and people too occasionally. None of this has ever, ever, happened when under the influence of marijuana.
'Gateway drug' is code for, that individual made a really bad decision (or was more inclined to do it for various reason, to begin with), so we are going to use this person as an example to scare everyone else off. 'Gateway drugs' do not exist, only problems within individuals do.
The fact that no stoner I know, has ever gotten into heroin, speaks to this within my own personal experience. If you want to do heroin, by all means, just don't pretend like the fact that someone hit a joint, THEN did heroin, means anything besides they were inclined to do heroin from the get go.
If I lock myself in a tiny box, I won't have to deal with the reality of all this either. Blame the individuals that make bad decisions, and those that help them make those decisions. Blaming an entire community, for no reason besides needing a blatant scape-goat, changes nothing.
@Wrex: Not saying that I think marijuana is more dangerous than booze. I'm wondering if marijuana is classified as such a dangerous drug (justified because it supposedly leads to use of other drugs) in US and UK because of it's actual properties (I think not) or because of a situation that has been created by the fact that it is illegal.
Statistics prove the gateway drug theory right. The causes are many and manifold, but statistically if you take pot you are an order of magnitude more likely to try the next thing up on the chain.
ShumaGorath wrote:Then I hope you don't ever go to a movie theatre, boxing match, or play a videogame. Because thats violence.
That makes little sense.
To condemn the shooting innocent people, but to enjoy movies where actors pretend to shoot innocent people for the enjoyment of the audience, is not hypocritical. To be hypocritical the person must cause innocent people to be shot; this is not necessarily done even by watching real acts of violence, much less staged acts. To condemn the viewing of violent media while enjoying violent movies would be hypocritical. (Of course, this person would most likely argue that it is not hypocritical for him because he only opposes the viewing of violent movies due to the negative effects on those who are of lesser mental integrity than himself, or something to that effect.)
A gateway drug assumes that someone started with it, limiting the substance to one thing.
I drank when I was five years old, that must be the reason why I do so much goddam heroin these days... wait... .
Shuma wrote:Statistics prove the gateway drug theory right.
I don't want to make a huge deal out of this, but statistics are A.) easily manipulable, and B.) often a poor source for accurate information.
If all the numbers were gathered from individuals that made bad decisions, then you will get those results in turn, by ignoring the rest of the necessary numbers. I would still like to see some information on that if you have it.
@Orkeo: This is why I just took the example for granted after noting it required many assumptions (which coalesce into something like "supporting violence in media translates into real life violence"); by accepting the flawed example, we can still get to agreement that it is hypocritical to say that alcohol should be banned as socially harmful while planning on getting drunk.
@Shuma & Wrex: My question is not aimed at whether or not marijuana is indeed a gateway drug but whether or not this is because of its intrinsic chemical qualities or because of social conditions created by making it illegal.
I think Wrex has it. I myself tried other drugs because I have an addictive personality and I don't have a lot of respect for the law. I can't blame weed for me trying psychadelic mushrooms, I tried them because I wanted to. No person or substance made me do it, I did. I think it all depends on the individual really. The reason I believe the statistc supports the gateway drug theory is because people who want to do alot of drugs almost have to try weed first. It's hard to buy meth off a guy if your not willing to even smoke a joint, it makes you look fishy. It's also hard to find meth if you can't at least find weed. I don't know a drug dealer around here who doesnt smoke pot, (except the heroin dealers, they don't like weed for some reason). Its totally graduating up to harder stuff, but you either have the intent to graduate or you don't.
@Manchu: It's deffinietly more of a social thing I believe.
ShumaGorath wrote:Statistics prove the gateway drug theory right. The causes are many and manifold, but statistically if you take pot you are an order of magnitude more likely to try the next thing up on the chain.
It's never -just- the pot Shuma. That's like saying violent videogames are responsible for most gun crimes.
More often it's the social factors surrounding the person's life at the time of their first use, their ability to make judgements, as well as the user's age. It's not so much that weed is a gateway drug, as it is young teens are very easily sucked into things by peer pressure. They're often afraid to say no because they're worried about what others would think, or they don't want to be shunned by a new group that they're hanging out with. They're more likely to try something because their friends and others are doing it. It's popular amongst their group. And popularity is a terrible weapon when it's wielded improperly.
As well, kids will try drugs as a means to get away from an abusive or otherwise harsh home life. I know a number of people that I went to highschool with that had drug problems because of physical abuse, their parents' marriage separation, just generally crappy parents that never taught them the risks, etc...
And then there's just a lack of willpower. Weed won't change that. If a kid can't tell right from wrong and a good idea from a bad one, then they're going to get sucked in if their friends don't stop them. Sadly, most kids don't do anything and end up playing the silent witness.
That's not to say the "Gateway" theory is totally debunked, but it's a lot less accurate than those that created it would have you believe.
@Shuma & Wrex: My question is not aimed at whether or not marijuana is indeed a gateway drug but whether or not this is because of its intrinsic chemical qualities or because of social conditions created by making it illegal.
One would assume both. Drugs wouldn't be prevalent if they didn't have an effect, and wouldn't be used if everyone had happy full lives.
It's never -just- the pot Shuma. That's like saying violent videogames are responsible for most gun crimes.
Which is why i said the reasons were many and manifold.
Shuma wrote:One would assume both. Drugs wouldn't be prevalent if they didn't have an effect, and wouldn't be used if everyone had happy full lives.
I basically agree with Shuma on this one. It is both, and both sides have very clear effects on the individual, even if the individual is the one to make that choice.
There is both a stigma on pot, as well as a community that could be considered obsessed with it.
From what I've read/heard, the idea that pot chemically causes your body to yearn for "harder" drugs is mythological and so bunk that it is being replaced with the newer myth (that some one already brought up) of buying marijuana laced with "harder" drugs.
Manchu wrote:From what I've read/heard, the idea that pot chemically causes your body to yearn for "harder" drugs is mythological and so bunk that it is being replaced with the newer myth (that some one already brought up) of buying marijuana laced with "harder" drugs.
I never understood that one. We certainly don't have that going on here. If people are lacing pot it's for their own personal use. Weed is cheap in these parts, almost $10 a gram, which is pretty good. Heroin, meth, cocaine all of these are much more expensive than pot, sometimes twice to five times as much. If a dealer was to lace the weed he sold he would only lose money, and send business to the meth labs. Besides if people want to buy pot you don't need to lace it to get it sold, it does that just fine on its own.
It's never -just- the pot Shuma. That's like saying violent videogames are responsible for most gun crimes.
Which is why i said the reasons were many and manifold.
And you're right in that, but that partially contrasts the gateway theory, which states that there is a solid link between use of soft drugs and harder sustances such as cocaine or meth. There're plenty of instances where the gateway theory has been shown to still be nothing more than that, so saying it's been proven to be right isn't exactly correct.
It's never -just- the pot Shuma. That's like saying violent videogames are responsible for most gun crimes.
Which is why i said the reasons were many and manifold.
And you're right in that, but that partially contrasts the gateway theory, which states that there is a solid link between use of soft drugs and harder sustances such as cocaine or meth. There're plenty of instances where the gateway theory has been shown to still be nothing more than that, so saying it's been proven to be right isn't exactly correct.
There is no gateway theory. There is a proven and easily recorded link between pot use and the use of harder drugs later. The theory is only in the explanation of cause, and those explanations exist in multiplicity, while the answer likely lies with all theories being true to an extent.
In -some- cases, there has been a link. But consider how many that count is, compared to how many people have smoked pot and -not- gone on to harder drugs, and it's a large enough contrast for the findings of the gateway theory to easily be considered debatable at best.
The theory tends to lean more towards placing blame on the drug itself as the catalyst, and less on the surroundings. I would say it's far more plausible and accurate to look at it the other way around.
There are also many people who smoke pot and aren't as open about it as others. I had several teachers who smoked weed but couldn't be up front about it or they'd lose their jobs. I figure theres alot of similar cases that don't get figured into the statistics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thought this would lighten the mood a little about the whole gateway drug discussion, also I'm sleep deprived and I find it funny.
Norwulf wrote:@bluntmandc: how is weed dangerous? I guess getting arrested can be dangerous. also I don't understand why using medical marijuana for non terminal patients is a joke.
most people smoke pot with tobbaco = a danger, the same reason medical marijana, an inhaler type device would be far better delivery systm for THC, also the deminished reflex time is the same as a drunk person so drug driving is just as stupid and dangerous, then there are the long term health issues. do you know why you get a high cos THC a complex organic molecule interacts with your brain its basic science and to think that it won't do stuff to your brain through continued longterm use is nieve.
BluntmanDC wrote: do you know why you get a high cos THC a complex organic molecule interacts with your brain its basic science and to think that it won't do stuff to your brain through continued longterm use is nieve.
First of all, there's no such thing as 'basic science'.
Second, if there were such a thing as 'basic science' the interaction of organic compounds under the auspices of the human metabolism would not be classified as such.
Third, there is no solid evidence to suggest that marijuana use has major, long term side effects.
You have a hypothesis, and you're trying to use emotion to prove it. Bad form.
Legalize it! the only reason it's illegal is because the USA (who would've thought..) kicked out a campaign in the 40's ,iirc, to illegalize it saying that it damages your brain and you'd become schizophrenic and a psycho...yeah!
In Japan, it is a major taboo if only in the last 60 or so years. There was an interesting story in the Daily Yomiuri online the other day which highlights the general cultural difference in attitude towards Low Bottom Leaf.
A few teenage girls, ages 14-16, were arrested in Kobe for smoking Pot. The girls, some of whom worked in Hostess bars, had been smoking it for about a year when they were arrested by Police. Now, as a Westerner, I don't have a big problem with teenagers smoking up. I did it. My siblings did it. I'm willing to wager almost every boss and teacher I ever had probably did it at one time or another. However, 14, 15 and 16 year old girls working in bars where creepy 50+ year old guys come in to drink, try to look up their skirts and buy their underwear? I find that a lot more disturbing. Yet, the Japanese people I have spoken with about this always parrot "Taima zeitai dame" - "Weed is totally bad news." And say nothing about essentially middle school aged girls working in an environment full of middle aged perverts.
It's all a matter of perspective. I say legalise it.
Then we should all hang out and play some Tekken and chip in for a Pizza.
The really really dumb thing about the 'war on drugs' is that the majority of issues associated with drugs stem directly or indirectly from it's illegal status. Prohibition has actually caused far more issues than it solves. In fact it solves nothing apart from giving moralists a sense of smug satisfaction.
Here's a cracking example. Below is an advert for FRANK, a drugs advisory services. Watch it.
OK lets look at the issues it brings up shall we?
First the dead dog. Well yes it's nasty but glosses over the fact that the only reason this inhumane method of smugging is even used is because it's a controlled substance and cannot be brought in legitimately.
Next the 'dealer', again glossing over the fact that crime and violence are only involved in the distribution of drugs is precisely because it's illegal! It's a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.
Cut with 70% rubbish? Again only because no legal standards can be enforced because the criminal element is involved, again because it's illegal!
dogma wrote:First of all, there's no such thing as 'basic science'.
I agree that there is no solid evidence seeing as long term effects can't be seen over30 years until long term tests can be taken, but come on thats were you start attacking me a figure of speech, it was ment figuratively not litterally, come on.
weed is for kids. Anyone who is out of full time education and still doing it more than the odd spliff at the end of a friday night out needs to sort their life out.
@whatwhat - Toy soldiers are for kids too. I'm guessing you might need to sort your life out as well.
@Everyone else - It's my belief that the whole 'gateway' thing has a lot to do with the fact that weed brings people into contact with dealers, making it easier for the people who wish to experiment to get hold of certain stuff. That was certainly the case in my experience, but I was always going to try other stuff, weed has nothing to with it - I stuck with weed and didn't become a coke-head so good times!
Im on the legalize it wagon. Im from Michigan, and just the amount of money that would be generated alone would pretty much save this state from the gak hole it has become. I think it needs to be regulated and taxed like alcohol and such.
Also it would stop wasting prison space for people that sell pot. The whole 3 strikes rule is a bit ridiculous IMO when someone that was caught selling/smoking pot goes to prison for over 50 years.
The 'gateway' theory is a nonsense. Saying that heavy drugs users may have once smoked weed is utterly irrelevant as:
A) They will also have likely tried Tobacco, Alcohol and Caffeine before that. Why does the 'gateway' argument not apply to them?
B) The vast majority of people whop smoke weed go onto do nothing more serious.
Seriously it's stupid that society is criminalising thousands of people who have never harmed anybody. It's total waste of time and money.
whatwhat wrote:weed is for kids. Anyone who is out of full time education and still doing it more than the odd spliff at the end of a friday night out needs to sort their life out.
The way i see it. Is that when you legalize weed the whole "It is cool because it is illigal" part goes away. I think it is mostly because of that teens start smoking, drinking etc. etc.
Oh and people do know that it is illegal to sell or own weed in The Netherlands (Amsterdam beeing the capital)
The really really dumb thing about the 'war on drugs' is that the majority of issues associated with drugs stem directly or indirectly from it's illegal status. Prohibition has actually caused far more issues than it solves. In fact it solves nothing apart from giving moralists a sense of smug satisfaction.
The war on drugs primarily targets heroin, cocaine, and meth. Drugs I certainly hope you don't also want legalized.
Lord Demon wrote:The way i see it. Is that when you legalize weed the whole "It is cool because it is illigal" part goes away. I think it is mostly because of that teens start smoking, drinking etc. etc.
Oh and people do know that it is illegal to sell or own weed in The Netherlands (Amsterdam beeing the capital)
Grtz
L.D.
Seriously?! When I was there I was baked the entire time. I don't think I sobered up until after I had been back in Durham for a few days. I always thought teens started pounding the booze and blazing for the experience of an altered state of consciousness. Smoking cigarettes on the other hand just makes you "cool".
I have been officially "uncool" for 2 years and my lungs are happy.
I can say from experience it does affect you long term.
I graduated with classmates that started doing it in HS and now 15 years later they talk like they got punched in the head too many times, they are constantly on edge and paranoid.
When I am talking to a 34yo man who has been smoking weed for 18 years and I know they haven't suffered any traumatic head injuries but the way they talk would make Cheech and Chong during their most baked in a movie sound intelligent and normal than what else could explain it?
People don't just normally become slowed without something happening to their brain.
Fateweaver wrote:I can say from experience it does affect you long term.
I graduated with classmates that started doing it in HS and now 15 years later they talk like they got punched in the head too many times, they are constantly on edge and paranoid.
When I am talking to a 34yo man who has been smoking weed for 18 years and I know they haven't suffered any traumatic head injuries but the way they talk would make Cheech and Chong during their most baked in a movie sound intelligent and normal than what else could explain it?
People don't just normally become slowed without something happening to their brain.
I see your point,but as a counter point I know many people who started smoking weed in HS and have gone on to manage companies,run business and have perfectly "sucesfull" lives,and they have been smoking weed since HS.
In many cases the "burnt out stoner" your refering to wasn't so bright even before he smoked his first joint.
I imagine it comes down to how often and how much.
Smoking a dub once a week I'm sure is a lot less harmful than smoking 3 or 4 dubs a day (and I know people like that).
Alcohol is the same way. 1 glass of wine a day is NOT going to mess up your body. Your liver can handle 1 glass of wine without getting fethed up. When you drink an entire bottle or 3 of wine per day it will cause long term affects.
Vitamins are dangerous in mass quantities. Too much of certain vitamins is dangerous.
So no I don't believe smoking a dub a week is going to feth up your brain but I know from experience that smoking 3 or 4 per day WILL.
So, in that regard alcohol is no more dangerous than weed (that and there has been more drug deals involving weed involving violence than violence over a keg of beer or case of beer).
Fateweaver wrote:I graduated with classmates that started doing it in HS and now 15 years later they talk like they got punched in the head too many times, they are constantly on edge and paranoid.
Not as if people are different, and some are just naturally on edge and paranoid. Have you seen them off of pot BTW? Let them stop smoking for a year or so, most people do not remain that way, unless they were paranoid and on edge to begin with.
When I am talking to a 34yo man who has been smoking weed for 18 years and I know they haven't suffered any traumatic head injuries but the way they talk would make Cheech and Chong during their most baked in a movie sound intelligent and normal than what else could explain it?
I can guarantee that they have done an awful lot more than pot if that is the case. Doing 'hard' psychedelics is the primary reason that a person would end up that dull, not pot. I have met an awful lot of individuals that took way too many drugs in their younger years, and they did end up pretty dull, but they certainly did not end up that way solely because of marijuana.
People don't just normally become slowed without something happening to their brain.
Mushrooms, LSD, Meth, Cocaine, etc... etc... these are the drugs that permanently damage your brain. I heard there was a recent study about long term effects of marijuana, but I can't find it. In terms of the huge amount of research out now, it would hardly sway my opinion very far.
Do know that some people age quicker? Some people get early diseases that are associated with old age. Not everyone has a sparkling, shiny, crisp mind, past their 50's. In fact, most people start to have real memory problems as early as 30 years old.
So no I don't believe smoking a dub a week is going to feth up your brain but I know from experience that smoking 3 or 4 per day WILL.
That is reasonable Fateweaver. There is no reason a person should be drinking a twelve pack a day, or smoke 5 joints a day, besides enjoyment. I know very few people that can even afford to do that, it is not exactly a cheap past-time.
Albatross wrote:Having read quite a few threads on gun control here, I wondered what Dakkites' positions on legalisation of Cannabis where? Do you favour a complete ban, Amsterdam-style 'Tolerance-zones', or complete legalisation? Not looking for anyone to 'out' themselves as weed smokers necessarily - just thought it might be interesting!
For what it's worth, I believe legalistion could generate a large amount of revenue for the UK, and that use is so widespread that it wouldn't have that much of a negative impact on society. Alchohol is FAR more dangerous and causes many more social problems, in addition to costing the NHS an absolute fortune.
Thoughts?
I'm a non smoker, having said that I totally agree with your post
Also been able to buy it over the counter would help keeping people from meeting dealers of other drugs
Fateweaver wrote:I imagine it comes down to how often and how much.
Smoking a dub once a week I'm sure is a lot less harmful than smoking 3 or 4 dubs a day (and I know people like that).
Alcohol is the same way. 1 glass of wine a day is NOT going to mess up your body. Your liver can handle 1 glass of wine without getting fethed up. When you drink an entire bottle or 3 of wine per day it will cause long term affects.
Vitamins are dangerous in mass quantities. Too much of certain vitamins is dangerous.
So no I don't believe smoking a dub a week is going to feth up your brain but I know from experience that smoking 3 or 4 per day WILL.
So, in that regard alcohol is no more dangerous than weed (that and there has been more drug deals involving weed involving violence than violence over a keg of beer or case of beer).
Well,of course moderation is the key here,if someone does nothing except smoke weed all day,their obviously not going to accomplish much,and the same can be said for someone who starts the day of with a bottle of vodka.
And concerning violence,true their may be some involved in the whole dealer/buyer world of weed,but I can say with out hesitation I have seen WAAAYYY more violence perpetrated by people under the influnce of alcohol,friday and saturday nights in New Orleans French Qaurter you will see more fights in one night then Mike Tyson has seen in his whole carear.
I just see no reason to legalize it. Alcohol in moderation is no more dangerous than weed and probably even LESS dangerous.
Most people can drink 1 beer and not feel a thing. Smoking a bowl or a dub I'm sure has it's effects, even on those who smoke it daily.
I have been in the same house where 6 people were lighting up. After 10 minutes I was starting to feel light headed and nauseous so I eventually left the house, went for a walk to clear my head (I was in the basement painting and could smell it drifting down into the paint room but like I said after 10 minutes it was making me feel what I can only imagine being stoned feels like (minus the nauseous).
So it wasn't a smoke box and I did leave the situation. So no, you don't need to be in a smoke box to get high off it. I wouldn't call 6 people smoking in an 1100 square foot area a "smoke box".
Most people can drink 1 beer and not feel a thing. Smoking a bowl or a dub I'm sure has it's effects, even on those who smoke it daily.
A truly silly argument, coming from someone who has never actually smoked pot. A beer, compared to .25 grams app. of marijuana, varying to the amount of 1 gram of marijuana. Damn that number is slippery.
I have been in the same house where 6 people were lighting up. After 10 minutes I was starting to feel light headed and nauseous so I eventually left the house, went for a walk to clear my head (I was in the basement painting and could smell it drifting down into the paint room but like I said after 10 minutes it was making me feel what I can only imagine being stoned feels like (minus the nauseous).
Fateweaver erroneously wrote:there has been more drug deals involving weed involving violence than violence over a keg of beer or case of beer
Woah, woah, woah.... I'm going to have to pull you on that one! That is far too simplistic a statement - transactions in which a keg of beer is purchased are generally legal - well...if you discount underage drinkers, but the beer its self is not an illicit substance. Buying illegal narcotics can very often put you in contact with some shady characters, a fact that wouldn't apply were it legalised. Plus, alcohol leads to violence waaaay more than weed. Anyone who's ever been stoned can vouch for that.
Albatross wrote:@whatwhat - Toy soldiers are for kids too. I'm guessing you might need to sort your life out as well.
"toy soldiers" don't make you totally unproductive and do nothing but watch family guy and eat doritos all day.
Did the whole weed thing at Uni. Now I've left I can't help but notice those around me who don't do it as often any more are the ones who are getting on.
Love cricket, love how seriously you take the off topic forum. Love it all. Now give me a 500 word essay on why the USA is in Iraq and make sure you type it like you believe it's going to make a difference like always Dogma. I'll forward it on to someone who cares and we'll see if we can sort some of that debt out for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Then maybe you scrawl the replies for anything you deem, in your infinite wisdom, ignorant so you can write out another 500 word rebuttal you've researched off Google, Wikipedia and some of those ivy league school books which cost you so much money. I know that gives you the feeling of fulfillment you need dogma. So do it. ...oh, you were already going to? Fair one. On your way squire, for your life holds much purpose.
whatwhat wrote:Love cricket, love how seriously you take the off topic forum. Love it all. Now give me a 500 word essay on why the USA is in Iraq and make sure you type it like you believe it's going to make a difference like always Dogma. I'll forward it on to someone who cares and we'll see if we can sort some of that debt out for you.
You seem upset.
whatwhat wrote:
Then maybe you scrawl the replies for anything you deem, in your infinite wisdom, ignorant so you can write out another 500 word rebuttal you've researched off Google, Wikipedia and some of those ivy league school books which cost you so much money. I know that gives you the feeling of fulfillment you need dogma. So do it. ...oh, you were already going to? Fair one. On your way squire, for your life holds much purpose.
I imagine you would be upset to learn that my debt has been paid by the State Department.
I like those 500 word essays, they tend to be well thought out and usually put issues into a different, interesting perspective. His habit of correcting inaccuracies is useful. Dogma (alongside sebster, polonius and JEB IMO) is one of the best reasons to read the OT forum.
Now i'll just go remove my lips form dogma's arse...
On Topic: I hear cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia, albeit with disputed research. Seems a good reason to keep it illegal.
Teh_K42 wrote:On Topic: I hear cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia, albeit with disputed research. Seems a good reason to keep it illegal.
That seems a good reason to regulate it, at least I would assume so. If self-medication can be stemmed through regulation, then there is a very good reason to regulate marijuana. I doubt that I will see pot legalized entirely for decades, if at all.
chromedog wrote:EVERY human society has found some way of chemically getting off.
This is a fair point, but the main purpose of this discussion in general, is to minimize the negative effects of said substances on the whole of a population.
One of the most interest parts of this conversation, comes in the form of why people use these substances. In very few societies, has there been widespread recreational use of 'drugs', without a considerable negative side to all of it. Formally, most tribal cultures use mind-altering substances in religious/spiritual ceremony, and medicine. Recreational use of these 'drugs' in a modern society, has a lot more going against it in general.
I don't attempt to say that marijuana is good or bad, just that the thought of a modern society, torn apart at the seams due to legalized marijuana, is unlikely (IMHO) to say the least. I do not have the same sentiment about other, harder substances, that could easily tear apart a modern society (IMHO).
Teh_K42 wrote:Now i'll just go remove my lips form dogma's arse...
Indeed. be sure to let him know I appreciate his concern. He has informed me how bitter I am three times now, he really needed to make sure I knew how bitter he I was bless him.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and we have recieved a new quote of the year via pm...
It's nice also how you feel the need to send me insults via pm believing that by calling me a homosexual and picking at my choice of career you have somehow hit a nerve.
cking trouble if we get caught with illegal drugs of any kind.
