Marijuana legalization!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)
Pot is addictive. You would be right in that it isn't chemically addictive, but I haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is in this thread.

Pot is extremely easy to form a dependency on with extended use, though. Technically, anything can create a dependency with habitual use- video gaming to eating food -but like any mind-altering substance, the simple fact that it's something you can use to quickly alleviate stress or tension means that it's very easy to regulate your emotions around it.

I don't think its something worth holding against the drug, because people do the same gak with food and booze, but I know quite a few people who've become totally obsessed with pot. To the point where their memory is crap and they're totally unreliable.

It's really sad to watch the process, honestly.

I've known a whole lot of stoners in my day. And I've never met one who couldn't put it down on the drop of a dime for the whiz quiz, suffer a day of boredom, and get on with their lives.

Not to say it doesn't have side effects, or people form habits. But lets not blow this out of proportion.

**streamdragon**

Nicorex wrote:OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

whembly wrote:So... instead of BEERHAMMER... why not engage in BLAZEDHAMMER?!?!?

Unfortunately, no. DC's law is very specific in what it allows and doesn't allow. It does NOT, for instance, allow shops to set up weed sales.

It DOES allow for private citizens to grow small amounts (up to 6 plants per person; no idea how many joints that actually makes). They can give it out, but they can not SELL it.

One person described it as a way to stop people from going to jail for simple possession, with an eye especially pointed at the African American population who is disproportionately likely to go to prison for simple possession.

So... if you can find a resident or two to grow for you, yes. I'd offer, but I'm in MD and I'm pretty sure I'd lose my clearance and my job for growing.

**jasper76**

To me, the biggest reason for federal legalization is the prison issue.

I mean, if you support prohibition, you support sending people to jail at great expense to society. Over what? I just don't get it. This issue should have been resolved in the 60s or 70s, but alas here we are heading into 2015.

**Jimsolo**

jasper76 wrote:
To me, the biggest reason for federal legalization is the prison issue.

I mean, if you support prohibition, you support sending people to jail at great expense to society. Over what? I just don't get it. This issue should have been resolved in the 60s or 70s, but alas here we are heading into 2015.

I'm given to understand that legalizing it would be a violation of international treaties. Which would complicate the issue.

**jasper76**

I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

**BlaxicanX**

Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, I am confused. Are you saying Pot is addictive or it is not addictive. Because Pot is addictive in the same way that literally anything else in the world can be addictive. It is all about Mental Illness and not about the substance itself. So I mean, Pot itself isn't addictive, people just become addicted to it.

Why say you're confused and then proceed to perfectly reiterate what I said?

As for the whole "their memory is crap and they'e totally unreliable" I am going to call bullcrap on that. Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause drops in memory at all.

Studies show lots of things.

Pot is not addictive. But instead, people with a predisposition to mental illness can become addicted to it.

If you can form an addiction to pot then pot is addictive.

I don't know why you're trying to argue that pot isn't chemically addictive when I started off my post, literally the second sentence, with "Pot isn't chemically addictive".

**Co'tor Shas**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Your statement doesn't leave a whole lot to extrapolate.

How does the Government stop people from committing suicide?

By stopping people jumping of bridges?

It's not a hard concept, if the police can stop someone from committing suicide or other lethal acts, they do so.

**Peregrine**

BlaxicanX wrote:
If you can form an addiction to pot then pot is addictive.

But that's a meaningless definition because it doesn't separate things into separate groups of "addictive" and "not addictive". You can become addicted to anything (well, other than suicide I guess), so if we use your definition then saying "X is addictive" adds nothing to our understanding of X.

**CptJake**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

If it were up to me, I would not have the Gov't making that decision. Folks want to destroy themselves with pot, booze, sex, gambling, whatever I could care less as long as no one expects my tax dollars to go towards unscrewing the mess they make of themselves and their families/lives. I am all for freedom of choice and zero freedom from consequences.
Wait, so you asked someone how they can justify something like weed being legal and then said if it was up to you the government would not be making that decision? Are you for or against weed being legal?

My positions is exactly as I stated, it should not be up to the gov't.

I questioned why someone would be against something for physical harm but not care about psychological harm. Harm is harm, and often physical harm is the lesser type. That is why I questioned his position, it made no sense to me and I wanted to see it defended.

**BlaxicanX**

Peregrine wrote:
You can become addicted to anything (well, other than suicide I guess),

Which is exactly what I said, which is why I'm not sure why people are trying to argue with me when they're basically just regurgitating my point.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

By stopping people jumping of bridges?

It's not a hard concept, if the police can stop someone from committing suicide or other lethal acts, they do so.

Okay. How is your point relevant to marijuana?

**CptJake**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Your statement doesn't leave a whole lot to extrapolate.

How does the Government stop people from committing suicide?

They don't stop it. Which is why CDC says it is the 10th highest cause of death in the US. They don't even clean up afterwards.

**Peregrine**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Which is exactly what I said, which is why I'm not sure why people are trying to argue with me when they're basically just regurgitating my point.

But then why are you posting to say that pot is addictive? If you aren't claiming that there is any difference between pot and water in terms of addiction then what exactly is your point? If "pot is potentiallty addictive just like every other thing" is your only claim then you're essentially doing the equivalent of coming into a thread and posting "hey guys, did you know that 1+1=2".

**BlaxicanX**

Peregrine wrote:
But then why are you posting to say that pot is addictive?

Because it is. That that being the case shouldn't have any influence on its legality doesn't make it not a fact, and to say "you can't get addicted to marijuana" is patently false and a potentially dangerous opinion to have.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

And he's been buzzed for 2 decades

**Grey Templar**

dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

True, but then you've got an "obviously bad stuff is obviously bad" situation.

Nobody pays attention to the minor stuff, which in turn results in greater suffering because there isn't a drive to treat it or even recognize a problem exists.

**Peregrine**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it is.

But so is everything else. Do you post in every thread on 40k to say "painting models can be addictive, be careful"? Do you make sure to start every post with "forums can be addictive, are you sure you want to read this post"?

That that being the case shouldn't have any influence on its legality doesn't make it not a fact, and to say "you can't get addicted to marijuana" is patently false and a potentially dangerous opinion to have.

How exactly is it dangerous? The risk of addiction doesn't seem to be any worse than the risk of addiction associated with lots of other stuff that we don't see any need to attach warning statements to. The statement "you can't get addicted" might not be absolute literal truth, but most reasonable people understand that when you're talking about addiction risks you're talking about exceptional risks, not just the general principle that you can get addicted to pretty much anything.

**Breotan**

There was an article the other day that said with all the taxes applied by Washington State and the IRS, it was nearly too expensive to grow.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/03/irs-limits-profits-marijuana-businesses/18165033/

**Co'tor Shas**

BlaxicanX wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

By stopping people jumping of bridges?

It's not a hard concept, if the police can stop someone from committing suicide or other lethal acts, they do so.
Okay. How is your point relevant to marijuana?

It doesn't, or at least specifically. It was in response to someone questioning an earlier statement of mine that if it doesn't cause harm, it should be legal.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:

True, but then you've got an "obviously bad stuff is obviously bad" situation.

I wouldn't say that alcohol is obviously bad. As is always the case, abusing it is the issue.

Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody pays attention to the minor stuff, which in turn results in greater suffering because there isn't a drive to treat it or even recognize a problem exists.

I have a hard time considering psychological dependency to be something which necessarily involves suffering. A great example of this is psychological dependency many people develop with respect to caffeine. The real issue is when that dependency starts to impact you day-to-day life in ways which impair your ability to function within society, such as having a stable income. As such, much as I'm not going to begrudge someone their morning coffee, I'm not going to begrudge someone their after work joint.

**BlaxicanX**

Peregrine wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it is.

But so is everything else. Do you post in every thread on 40k to say "painting models can be addictive, be careful"? Do you make sure to start every post with "forums can be addictive, are you sure you want to read this post"?

That that being the case shouldn't have any influence on its legality doesn't make it not a fact, and to say "you can't get addicted to marijuana" is patently false and a potentially dangerous opinion to have.

How exactly is it dangerous? The risk of addiction doesn't seem to be any worse than the risk of addiction associated with lots of other stuff that we don't see any need to attach warning statements to. The statement "you can't get addicted" might not be absolute literal truth, but most reasonable people understand that when you're talking about addiction risks you're talking about exceptional risks, not just the general principle that you can get addicted to pretty much anything.

I can't tell if you're actually disagreeing with me or if you're just being contrary out of boredom.

Summarize your argument in a sentence.

**jasper76**

Some people develop addictions to putting there toes in the sand on the beach to relax. Just sayin.

**Grey Templar**

dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

True, but then you've got an "obviously bad stuff is obviously bad" situation.

I wouldn't say that alcohol is obviously bad. As is always the case, abusing it is the issue.

Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody pays attention to the minor stuff, which in turn results in greater suffering because there isn't a drive to treat it or even recognize a problem exists.

I have a hard time considering psychological dependency to be something which necessarily involves suffering. A great example of this is psychological dependency many people develop with respect to caffeine. The real issue is when that dependency starts to impact you day-to-day life in ways which impair your ability to function within society, such as having a stable income. As such, much as I'm not going to begrudge someone their morning coffee, I'm not going to begrudge someone their after work joint.

It does depend on the addiction. You can be addicted to something harmless, although anything taken to an extreme will be harmful.

There is good evidence that weed causes some not insignificant problems. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

Relaxation is a dangerous side effect if you are driving. Reaction time is the real factor in avoiding a crash, thats why the 10/1 rule exists. The fact it does also make you drive slower isn't actually a compensator, it just adds to the danger. Large doses can cause hallucinations and impaired memory.

Being addicted to something like this can't be a good thing.

**BlaxicanX**

jasper76 wrote:
Some people develop addictions to putting there toes in the sand on the beach to relax.

Prove it.

**Peregrine**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Summarize your argument in a sentence.

"Why are you posting here if all you're saying is the equivalent of insisting that 1+1=2?"

**BlaxicanX**

Peregrine wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Summarize your argument in a sentence.

"Why are you posting here if all you're saying is the equivalent of insisting that 1+1=2?"

Ah.

Because someone claimed that it equals 4.

**jasper76**

BlaxicanX wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Some people develop addictions to putting there toes in the sand on the beach to relax.
Prove it.

Next time I visit my mom , come out to OBX. The beach bums are everywhere!

**BlaxicanX**

OBX?

**jasper76**

Outer Banks, NC

**BlaxicanX**

Ahhh.

I live in San Francisco. We have those zombies here, too.