Should Marijuana be legal? [Archive]

punkjake

June 27th, 2009, 12:16 AM

I was doing some studys,well here you can read them and tell me what you think,PS I am NOT a pot head tring to get it legal i was just starting a debate.Well heres the info.
. Marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol.

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use." See, http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Deaths from the two substances. There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history. The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.

In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported 20,687 “alcohol-induced deaths” (excluding accidents and homicides) in 2003. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

The CDC has no reports of “marijuana-induced deaths.” (In reality, there may be 2-5 deaths each year attributed to marijuana, but this article -- http://bbsnews.net/bw2005-02-01.html -- describes how these are actually deaths attributable to other causes but “blamed” on marijuana due to the way the data is collected.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.
The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called "ecstasy") and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or "roofies") and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.

Despite the health risks and social costs, consciousness-altering chemicals have been used for centuries in almost all cultures. So it would be unrealistic to expect that all types of recreational drug use will suddenly cease. Self-management of these substances is extremely difficult, yet modern Western societies have not, in general, developed positive, socially sanctioned rituals as a means of regulating the use of some of the less hazardous recreational drugs. I would argue that we need to do that.

Source: The American Scientist, the Magazine of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?&print=y

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.

There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations.

There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers. Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.

Source: Iversen, Leslie. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. Volume 5, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 69-72. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.

The committee commissioned an assessment of 20 legal and illegal stimulants in order to bring some logic to the country’s drug classification. Based on this study, they made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation that alcohol be considered among the most harmful drugs. Cannabis was considered significantly less harmful. (See chart below.) As you can see in the chart below, cannabis was recently rescheduled in the UK and is now a Class C substance (with A being the most harmful).

Source: New Scientist Magazine. Issue 2563. August 2006, page 5. Drug-danger 'league table' revealed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.For the first 162 years of America's existence, marijuana was totally legal and hemp was a common crop. But during the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition. Some headlines made about marijuana in the 1930s were: "Marijuana: The assassin of youth." "Marijuana: The devil's weed with roots in hell." "Marijuana makes fiends of boys in 30 days." "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marijuana, he would drop dead of fright." In 1936, the liquor industry funded the infamous movie titled Reefer Madness. This movie depicts a man going insane from smoking marijuana, and then killing his entire family with an ax. This campaign of lies, as well as other evidence, have led many to believe there may have been a hidden agenda behind Marijuana Prohibition.

Shortly before marijuana was banned by The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries. Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry (see New Billion-Dollar Crop). Evidence suggests that commercial interests having much to lose from hemp competition helped propagate reefer madness hysteria, and used their influence to lobby for Marijuana Prohibition. It is not known for certain if special interests conspired to destroy the hemp industry via Marijuana Prohibition, but enough evidence exists to raise the possibility.

After Alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) was reduced. The FBN's own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes." Marijuana Prohibition is founded on lies and rooted in racism, prejudice, and ignorance. Just as politicians believed Harry J. Anslinger to be a marijuana expert in 1937, many people still believe law enforcement officials are marijuana experts. In reality, law enforcement officials have no expert knowledge of marijuana's medical or health effects, but they do represent an industry that receives billions of tax dollars to enforce Marijuana Prohibition.

Before the government began promoting reefer madness hysteria during the 1930s, the word marijuana was a Mexican word that was totally absent from the American vocabulary. In the 1930s, Americans knew that hemp was a common, useful, and harmless crop. It is extremely unlikely anyone would have believed hemp was dangerous, or would have believed stories of hemp madness. Thus, the words marijuana and reefer were substituted for the word hemp in order to frighten the public into supporting Hemp Prohibition. Very few people realized that marijuana and hemp came from the same plant species; thus, virtually nobody knew that Marijuana Prohibition would destroy the hemp industry.

Bolstering the theory that marijuana was banned to destroy the hemp industry, two articles were written on the eve of Marijuana Prohibition that claim hemp was on the verge of becoming a super crop. These articles appeared in two well-respected magazines that are still published today. The articles are:

I don't own any of this.
So lets debate!Who thinks pot should be legal,not coke,heroione,or acid.Just explain why you think it should be,if you see soemone's theroy flase,stupid,or wrong fell free to reply to it ;).I think it shoudl be legal since it does less damage then achoul, or cancer sticks.Also if people could do it they wouldn't have such an adcition,also the only the reasont hey did was for taxes.

Mzor203

June 27th, 2009, 01:11 AM

Well, your arguments for marijuana being legal mean nothing to me, as I think alcohol should be illegal as well, thus comparing it to something I think should be illegal doesn't work.

Marijuana doesn't kill you directly. Indirectly? Sure. My dad was on pot once, he decided to go for a ride. He backed up out of the driveway, quickly, and smashed into the tree on the other side of the road. Had to go to the hospital after that (Honestly can't remembber what it was for, but something in my head's telling me neck injury).

Pot can also get you in very bad situations. I know multiple people who've been on pot and done something really stupid (like randomly sexing up a friend).

I'm too tired to put up every aspect of my argument, but it's a drug that has the potential to harm people other than the user, thus I think it should not be legal.

punkjake

June 27th, 2009, 01:16 AM

Sage

June 27th, 2009, 01:22 AM

I think alcohol should be illegal as well

Yeah, Rex, let's all go through another Prohibition era.

My dad was on pot once, he decided to go for a ride.

No offense, but your dad was being stupid. If you know you're going to get intoxicated off of something, you should know better than to try driving or operating machinery. Like alcohol, if used responsibly, marijuanna is harmless.

INFERNO

June 27th, 2009, 01:24 AM

There have been correlational studies on testicular cancer and the usage of marijuana.

There has been another study where it was suggested that inhaling the marijuana smoke poses more harm than inhaling cigarette smoke: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129.

Source #3, the link does not work. Please find a new link or I'd consider that source to be dismissed.

Where is the source for #6? The link above suggests otherwise.

For source#2 (first link) I searched the page and did not find anywhere where it said 0 marijuana overdose deaths. If it indeed is there, then please quote it and I'll try to find it again.

For source #2 (second link), the page links to a study and in the study it states: "In 2006, a total of 22, 073 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States... The category "alcohol-induced causes" includes not only deaths from dependent and non-dependent uses of alcohol but also of accidental poisoning by alcohol."

This is rather interesting as source#2 (third link) has:

"The following is quoted from the 2003 edition of Physician's Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2003-1108, p.12:

"The cause-of-death section consists of two parts. Part I is for reporting a chain of events leading directly to death, with the immediate cause of death (the final disease, injury, or complication directly causing death) on line (a) and the underlying cause of death (the disease or injury that initiated the chain of events that led directly and inevitably to death) on the lowest used line. Part II is for reporting all other significant diseases, conditions, or injuries that contributed to death but which did not result in the underlying cause of death given in Part I."

So, in essence, a death could be attributed to marijuana use in this type of scenario: someone gets high, walks in front of a car and thus: "because he got high, he was discombobulated and walked in front of a car. The "immediate" cause of death would be hit by car, while the "underlying" cause of death would be because he got high. "

While it may be labeled as "alcohol-induced", it includes "non-dependent" deaths, which I'm not understanding, and the third link mentions how there are multiple causes, so you cannot really point to just one cause. So in the end, you've managed to give a source to go against your source.

Wait... if people could do it, then they wouldn't have their addiction to it? And how do taxes fit into this? I'm not sure what you're on about.

However, your argument is flawed because you can die from marijuana indirectly, that is, you get high on it, it impairs your functioning and you die in some way. So while overdosing on it is very unlikely, dying indirectly from it certainly is possible.

According to the Department of Defense, there were 1,841,182 drug arrests in the US in 2007. 47.4% of these were due to marijuana and 89% of those arrests were due to possession (the other 11% was unmentioned for what it was for). Clickie here (http://www.socialmedicine.org/2009/01/30/uncategorized/record-marijuana-arrests-feed-the-prison-industrial-complex/)

Now, if we decide to make marijuana legal, I see no reason why this number (which is on the rise) would go down. You can argue it would be great to tax the hell out of, however, as the studies do indicate that marijuana can indeed cause harm, especially when inhaled and it can lead to deaths indirectly, making it legal would only increase those.

Mzor203

June 27th, 2009, 01:25 AM

No offense, but your dad was being stupid. If you know you're going to get intoxicated off of something, you should know better than to try driving or operating machinery. Like alcohol, if used responsibly, marijuanna is harmless.

The problem is, you can say to yourself "I will not go drive while I'm high." But when you're high, your brain is completely out of whack, and if you're high enough, you're going to completely forget that you decided not to drive in the first place. So suddenly driving seems like a good idea, because you are not able to think about what you're doing.

Honestly, how many people these days are ale to use substances such as these 'responsibly'? Nowhere enough, in my opinion.

punkjake

June 27th, 2009, 01:27 AM

I do know it does damage but it does a little less then achoul:P

INFERNO

June 27th, 2009, 01:33 AM

I do know it does damage but it does a little less then achoul:P

Wonderful, if you actually read my post, you'd have seen I was comparing cigarettes and marijuana. The first link I gave showed marijuana can be more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Why you are babbling now about alcohol is beyond me.

Φρανκομβριτ

June 27th, 2009, 04:57 PM

legalize it, tax the shit out of it, and our economy goes up. Everyone wins

punkjake

June 27th, 2009, 09:00 PM

legalize it, tax the shit out of it, and our economy goes up. Everyone wins
lol
at least someone doesn't have there panties in a not *cough*inferno*cough*:P

punkjake

June 27th, 2009, 09:00 PM

Wonderful, if you actually read my post, you'd have seen I was comparing cigarettes and marijuana. The first link I gave showed marijuana can be more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Why you are babbling now about alcohol is beyond me.

maybe i wasn't talking to you

INFERNO

June 27th, 2009, 10:19 PM

lol
at least someone doesn't have there panties in a not *cough*inferno*cough*:P

Personal attacks are not needed in a debate, save them for another time and place.

maybe i wasn't talking to you

Then specify who you were talking to. You weren't talking to me, I assume it wasn't to the post before mine, so next time, say who it was and save this from happening.

Sage

June 28th, 2009, 08:26 PM

legalize it, tax the shit out of it, and our economy goes up. Everyone wins

Not to mention it would get rid of many pot smokers' connections to gangs and dealers.

Bobby

June 28th, 2009, 08:53 PM

legalize it, tax the shit out of it, and our economy goes up. Everyone wins

Except for all of the addicts who stop showing up to work. No way in hell will it raise an economy. And people would still import it illegally because it's cheaper. That's hardly helping our economy.

Commander Thor

June 28th, 2009, 09:29 PM

Except for all of the addicts who stop showing up to work. No way in hell will it raise an economy. And people would still import it illegally because it's cheaper. That's hardly helping our economy.

Show me that it's addictive.
Go on then, show me!

You can't can you?

I smoke pot on a regular basis, and I somehow manage to drag my ass into work every damn day. Hell, it makes work more fun most of the time.

And the 'people will import it because it's cheaper' is bs.
People still legally buy CDs, instead of just pirating it.
Pirating is cheaper, so why not?
Because people like to be 'good citizens'.

Stop being so narrow minded, and just following what DARE told you.

Bobby

June 28th, 2009, 10:27 PM

gone

June 29th, 2009, 08:07 AM

I dont smoke it but I think it should be legal its far more peacefull than booze

punkjake

July 1st, 2009, 01:32 PM

I dont smoke it but I think it should be legal its far more peacefull than booze

IKR at least someone agree's with me =_=,also has anyone else besides me been having a server crash on VT :what:

ThUnDeR

July 1st, 2009, 01:36 PM

what i dont get is why they call it a DRug when its a PLANT!

punkjake

July 1st, 2009, 01:51 PM

what i don't get is why they call it a Drug when its a PLANT!

I know!Its not cocaine or Ice,Acid its all natural also if people could do weed they wouldn't have a addiction to where its hard to find it which causes addiction,which results in sometimes to drinking alcohol which the government can TAX

orangecounty

July 1st, 2009, 05:19 PM

I think marijuana should be legal. It would just be another thing to weed out the "have nots" of society and leave more room for those of us who are goal oriented, anti-drug citizens on the way to the top. Social darwinism at its finest! ;)

LiGHT

July 1st, 2009, 06:47 PM

Reality

July 1st, 2009, 08:47 PM

lol
at least someone doesn't have there panties in a not *cough*inferno*cough*:P
Inferno pwns.

Andd. I think it should be legal. It's pretty much another cigs/alcohol, and it's even less harmful than alcohol, actually.

It would put, as someone said, ends to Weed consumers connections with gangs and criminals, and since there's so many people that do it.. it would make a nice little profit for those in government(s)... I mean tax.

INFERNO

July 2nd, 2009, 03:10 AM

Marijuana should be legal. But i think you should have some type of license or like make a building called pot heads united or something. Its smoke is way less harmful than cigarettes and doesn't do that much damage all it really does is get you a high.

Wrong, studies have shown it can be more harmful than cigarettes: CLICKIE HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129).

If you need a license for it, then I think a reasonable questions becomes, should you also need one for buying alcoholic beverages and cigarettes?

punkjake

July 2nd, 2009, 03:25 PM

Wrong, studies have shown it can be more harmful than cigarettes: CLICKIE HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129).

If you need a license for it, then I think a reasonable questions becomes, should you also need one for buying alcoholic beverages and cigarettes?
lol where i live people would not like that!But no you don't ,and where I live*USA*they say this place is free living :mad:

INFERNO

July 3rd, 2009, 10:59 AM

lol where i live people would not like that!But no you don't ,and where I live*USA*they say this place is free living :mad:

I'm guessing you're referring to what I said about having licenses (if that's not it then I have no clue what you're on about)? I'm not sure if you thought I wanted there to be licenses, I was simply responding to what LiGHT had suggested about having licenses for marijuana.

akadrase

July 14th, 2009, 10:23 AM

It is legal, only for medical purposes though.

YourFriend

July 14th, 2009, 11:07 AM

Cigaretes, drugs, alchocol, all of the should be illegal.

twotall

July 14th, 2009, 11:28 AM

should it be legal yes for some reasons but i cant fight for ether because i am a smoker and trying to stop

Bluearmy

July 15th, 2009, 04:37 AM

So here is what it boils down to in my little insignificant opinion.

People who want this drug are going to get it. Whether illegal or legal. Since it is illegal right now, the gangs are being fueled with money, and many nations are plagued with drug lords.

If you legalize it, you can start setting ligament restrictions, not to mention capitalize it.

I am not a pot head either, and I don't plan on doing drugs anytime soon, but I am all for legalization!

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 04:46 AM

So here is what it boils down to in my little insignificant opinion.

Your opinion on here isn't insignificant.

People who want this drug are going to get it. Whether illegal or legal.

I agree with this.

Since it is illegal right now, the gangs are being fueled with money, and many nations are plagued with drug lords.

I agree also, although the gangs probably aren't all fueled with money from pot-dealing or drug-dealing in general.

If you legalize it, you can start setting ligament restrictions, not to mention capitalize it.

Here's where the issues start. What are the restrictions and how do you try to get people to adhere to it? Since in some respects it's less harmful and less likely to get killed by it (assuming you don't smoke a lot then go out and do something to get killed but rather just over-dose on it by itself), then should it have different penalties and if so, then what? If it shouldn't have different penalties, then why should something that's generally safer have the same penalties as something that's more dangerous?

Poetic Folly

July 15th, 2009, 04:55 AM

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 06:28 AM

I thought it was legal in Canada, Inferno.
I think it should be legal. Hemp would be cheaper and more efficient then most things. Industrial hemp has been tried for many uses, including paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction, health food, and fuel.
Also, how dangerous is Cannabis when taken orally?

I approach the debate with the assumption in mind that it is not. When taken orally, it can affect your performance and if you take enough, then you drive or operate some machinery, then it can adversely affect you and you can edit yourself in some way.

I looked a bit in my medical pharmacology book and sadly, there's not a whole lot interesting that hasn't been mentioned in this thread or another.

Although smoking it is debatable. Some studies have shown it is more damaging than cigarette smoke so you can end up with more damage that way. So, if you take it orally by smoke, there's a higher chance of bronchopulmonary cancer than with cigarettes. There's some debate also over how it can affect your memory and mental processes. It may impair learning if you take a lot for some time, although it's also debatable on that.

If you're on some medications then it may be rather bad for you but that is a given with pretty much anything you put in your body. It can decrease immune system function, which can be both good and bad but assuming you're healthy, it's bad.

It can cause some paranoia or anxiety but that's a short-term effect that you'd probably learn from.

There's an issue with how it can affect the chances of various psychiatric disorders but the problem in these studies is the directionality and causality. So some say it does, some say it doesn't, research is divided on this by opinion.

The good news is that cannabinoids can be used medicinally for various things. Overall, it's not a drug that I'd consider to be too dangerous, probably among the least dangerous drug.

Poetic Folly

July 15th, 2009, 06:45 AM

Yah, I meant digested, not smoked.

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 06:54 AM

Yah, I meant digested, not smoked.

Digested would have all the same effects minus the ones for the brochopulmonary disorders. It goes quickly to the brain and would also affect your immune system if you take enough. I forgot to add, there are some correlation studies with it and testicular cancer, although there's immense debate over that.

Church

July 15th, 2009, 08:26 PM

I dont see a reason why it's illegal 'cept the government cant tax it cause people don't sell and buy through the government with it.

Bougainvillea

July 15th, 2009, 09:43 PM

It should stay illegal. I lost my father because of it. It's stupid. Who cares if it's not physically addicting. It's mind altering.

Bluearmy

July 15th, 2009, 09:52 PM

It should stay illegal. I lost my father because of it. It's stupid. Who cares if it's not physically addicting. It's mind altering.

Keeping it illegal has done nothing to make people stop taking it. It has done nothing to keep underage teens from taking it. All making illegal has done is cause problems.

Bougainvillea

July 15th, 2009, 09:54 PM

For people who smoke it. It's an immature decision.

Whisper

July 15th, 2009, 09:56 PM

no offense but you can't really OD on pot....I've never herd of it
there had to have been more behind it
allot more

I`m sorry for your loss
I really am
But I don`t see how pot could have been the sole contributor

Legalize it, tax it

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 09:59 PM

I dont see a reason why it's illegal 'cept the government cant tax it cause people don't sell and buy through the government with it.

It should stay illegal. I lost my father because of it. It's stupid. Who cares if it's not physically addicting. It's mind altering.

Seeing as how the dosage required and time required to kill yourself on it is damn near impossible to do, your father would be an amazing case. Of course, if he smoked it then did something which resulted in his death or took something else with it, then that's not an amazing case at all.

But do you have an argument against/for it other than how it has affected your life?

For people who smoke it. It's an immature decision.

Why is it immature?

Bougainvillea

July 15th, 2009, 10:08 PM

Are you guys implying he was a pot head? My father was arresting someone for possession and they shot him.

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 10:12 PM

Are you guys implying he was a pot head? My father was arresting someone for possession and they shot him.

You said he died from it and left it at that, so I assumed that yes, he was doing it. But if he didn't do it, then it's a loss on his part either way. Do you have an argument for it other than your personal-life example?

Bougainvillea

July 15th, 2009, 10:16 PM

Not really. It's stupid to me. Same with drinking and smoking. It's damaging to the body and mind. Legalising it would, to me, make easier access to it.

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 10:28 PM

Not really. It's stupid to me. Same with drinking and smoking. It's damaging to the body and mind. Legalising it would, to me, make easier access to it.

Fast-food damages the body and can damage the mind also. So wouldn't you want to make that illegal? How about making everything else that damages the body and mind be made illegal?

Bougainvillea

July 15th, 2009, 10:38 PM

INFERNO

July 15th, 2009, 10:44 PM

I didn't put that into it. I meant that with the "It's stupid part"
Then I made a statement about the legalising process.
And I was stating my opinion. No need to attack me. I obviously have my reasons. I'm not going into a huge debate!

Well... this is a debating part of the VT forum. All I did was use your logic and apply it to other common things that fit and ask your opinion on it then.

Bougainvillea

July 15th, 2009, 10:49 PM

Kale

July 15th, 2009, 10:50 PM

Should Marijuana be legal?

Yes, it should.

^___^

Bluearmy

July 15th, 2009, 11:34 PM

My logic?
OH! I see.
It's something that should stay illegal. It's a drug. Legalizing it would probably increase the use in underage teens. If it was to be legalized, it should only be allowed use in controlled environments. And have basic age laws like tobacco and alcohol.

I do admit, that by legalizing it, it will most likely increase the number of users because it takes less effort to get it. But it would be just like cigarettes, it would come down to whether or not you want to use it, access is always there, but that doesn't mean every single teen is going to try and get it.

The plus side is that by legalizing it, you can now put restrictions on it. Where as the scum of the earth who used to sell it when it was illegal would give it to anybody so long as enough money is at hand. With legalizing it, comes restrictions you can place, and a fairly easy way to capitalize a new product. By keeping it illegal, you keep it underground and continue to fuel criminals and drug wars.

Sage

July 16th, 2009, 02:40 AM

Marijuanna and other drugs affect your mind. I dislike the idea of the government controlling what I can do with my mind.

Commander Thor

July 16th, 2009, 02:43 AM

INFERNO

July 16th, 2009, 10:53 AM

My logic?
OH! I see.
It's something that should stay illegal. It's a drug. Legalising it would probably increase the use in underage teens. If it was to be legalised, it should only be allowed use in controlled environments. And have basic age laws like tobacco and alcohol.

Yes it is a drug but so are pharmacutical medications. The one problem is, how do you set up the controlled environments, maintain them and if they are broken, what are the penalties?

The plus side is that by legalizing it, you can now put restrictions on it. Where as the scum of the earth who used to sell it when it was illegal would give it to anybody so long as enough money is at hand. With legalizing it, comes restrictions you can place, and a fairly easy way to capitalize a new product. By keeping it illegal, you keep it underground and continue to fuel criminals and drug wars.

The issue as I mentioned above, what are the restrictions, how do you enforce them, what are the penalties for breaking them, etc...?

Bougainvillea

July 16th, 2009, 11:20 AM

I have a question.
When you go to school, have you looked around at all, at everyone there?
Or do you stay with your clique?

If you actually looked around a bit, you'd find that marijuana usage amongst teens is staggering.

(To the bolded bit.... )
And just because something's a drug, doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Caffeine is a drug, and is more harmful than Marijuana, should we make caffeine illegal now?

If you knew where I go to school, you wouldn't ask that question. I'm friends with everyone. Mainly because there are only about 650 people in my school. There aren't these types of problems.

Bluearmy

July 16th, 2009, 01:12 PM

The issue as I mentioned above, what are the restrictions, how do you enforce them, what are the penalties for breaking them, etc...?

1.) No person under the age of 21 is allowed to possess or use Marijuana. - Felony if failure to follow this rule.

2.) No person is allowed to drive or operate machinery while or immediately after the use of Marijuana. - Felony if failure to follow this rule.

3.) The use of Marijuana is only allowed in certain public areas, and can be validated in private areas such as businesses or your own home. Outside of those areas, the use of Marijuana is forbidden. - misdemeanor if fail to follow this rule.

4.) The use of Marijuana around people under the age of 18 is prohibited. - Misdemeanor if fail to follow this rule.

Whisper

July 16th, 2009, 01:39 PM

If you knew where I go to school, you wouldn't ask that question. I'm friends with everyone. Mainly because there are only about 650 people in my school. There aren't these types of problems.

Bullshit
I'm from a town of 800 people
the HS in my area is in a village of less than 400 people
Statistically speaking drug usage is high in rural area's
Hell you're in Texas, Texas has a higher teen pregnancy rate than all the other states combined, abstinence teaching, mmmmm. Sex doesn't exist in your area either does it?

for you to sit there and go 'there aren't these types of problems' is about as accurate as when Ahmadinejad stated that 'the gay' doesn't exist in his country

INFERNO

July 16th, 2009, 01:41 PM

1.) No person under the age of 21 is allowed to possess or use Marijuana. - Felony if failure to follow this rule.

2.) No person is allowed to drive or operate machinery while or immediately after the use of Marijuana. - Felony if failure to follow this rule.

3.) The use of Marijuana is only allowed in certain public areas, and can be validated in private areas such as businesses or your own home. Outside of those areas, the use of Marijuana is forbidden. - misdemeanor if fail to follow this rule.

4.) The use of Marijuana around people under the age of 18 is prohibited. - Misdemeanor if fail to follow this rule.

For rule 3, if it is allowed in certain public areas, then that doesn't make much sense as you can smoke pot in public but you cannot drink in public.

For rule 4, if it's a misdemeanor for using it, then is there the same penalty for possessing it?

If you knew where I go to school, you wouldn't ask that question. I'm friends with everyone. Mainly because there are only about 650 people in my school. There aren't these types of problems.

This I find to be nonsense, I'm sure there are those problems just you are not aware of them or you're not admitting to seeing them.

Donkey

July 16th, 2009, 01:42 PM

Bullshit
I'm from a town of 800 people
the HS in my area is in a village of less than 400 people
Statistically speaking drug usage is high in rural area's
Hell you're in Texas, Texas has a higher teen pregnancy rate than all the other states combined, abstinence teaching, mmmmm. Sex doesn't exist in your area either does it?

for you to sit there and go 'there aren't these types of problems' is about as accurate as when Ahmadinejad stated that 'the gay' doesn't exist in his country
Different schools work differently. Like Nick, my school is more of a community than just a bunch of people.

Nihilus

July 16th, 2009, 02:50 PM

It should be used only for medical purposes only.

Bluearmy

July 16th, 2009, 03:04 PM

For rule 3, if it is allowed in certain public areas, then that doesn't make much sense as you can smoke pot in public but you cannot drink in public.

For rule 4, if it's a misdemeanor for using it, then is there the same penalty for possessing it?...

I didn't know drinking was not allowed in public, but now that I think about it, that's true.

Rule 3 change: No smoking of Marijuana in public areas.

Rule 5: It is not allowed to have Marijuana in plain view when people under the age of 18 are present.

Make sense now?

Bougainvillea

July 16th, 2009, 03:21 PM

Bullshit
I'm from a town of 800 people
the HS in my area is in a village of less than 400 people
Statistically speaking drug usage is high in rural area's
Hell you're in Texas, Texas has a higher teen pregnancy rate than all the other states combined, abstinence teaching, mmmmm. Sex doesn't exist in your area either does it?

for you to sit there and go 'there aren't these types of problems' is about as accurate as when Ahmadinejad stated that 'the gay' doesn't exist in his country

First, I'm in Texas for the summer. I come from a small mountain community in northern Nevada. I know ALOT of people here. I have had family here for years.

And don't call my statements bullshit. If I was that rude, I wouldn't bother posting.

INFERNO

July 16th, 2009, 03:30 PM

I didn't know drinking was not allowed in public, but now that I think about it, that's true.

Rule 3 change: No smoking of Marijuana in public areas.

Rule 5: It is not allowed to have Marijuana in plain view when people under the age of 18 are present.

Make sense now?

Rule 3 change, can you still smoke in validated areas?

Rule 5 is going to be really tricky. You cant always know if the people around you are under 18. So that rule I think will cause massive problems because if the person doesn't state their under 18 (although they truly are) and they may look older, act more mature, etc..., then the smoker truly may not know. You cant expect them to ask everyone around them if they're 18 or not each time someone is within eye-distance.

Whisper

July 16th, 2009, 03:34 PM

First, I'm in Texas for the summer. I come from a small mountain community in northern Nevada. I know ALOT of people here. I have had family here for years.

And don't call my statements bullshit. If I was that rude, I wouldn't bother posting.
yet you continue to do so
You've been arrogant and smug throughout this entire thread
but you've yet to give me a legitimate reason for why pot should remain illegal

all you've done is said that alcohol should be illegal as well
because prohibition went over soooooo well :roll:

Poetic Folly

July 16th, 2009, 09:27 PM

Sage

July 16th, 2009, 10:58 PM

Everyone is arguing about how bad it is for you and how it shouldn't be exposed to children under 18. Do you realize that they're going to do it anyway? How easy it is to get marijuana if you want it? I think the talk should be more about how it would effect the economy because it's the same as under age drinking and smoking. If they want to do it, they do it. It's illegal, they do it anyway.

Not to mention that legalization would put an end to a lot of gang-related problems. Just look back at the Prohibition era- That worked out real swell and dandy, didn't it?

Bluearmy

July 17th, 2009, 12:03 AM

Not to mention that legalization would put an end to a lot of gang-related problems. Just look back at the Prohibition era- That worked out real swell and dandy, didn't it?

My point exactly, legalization would solve problems and create none.

INFERNO

July 17th, 2009, 01:06 AM

First, I'm in Texas for the summer. I come from a small mountain community in northern Nevada. I know ALOT of people here. I have had family here for years.

And don't call my statements bullshit. If I was that rude, I wouldn't bother posting.

Nice thing about Freedom of Speech... . However, the issue is, you haven't given an argument, you've just stated an opinion on it with no reason (other than your father dying and such).

My point exactly, legalization would solve problems and create none.

There is a potential problem I see with it. If it is cheaper to buy illegally, then why would you buy legally? There would still be illegal growing areas and if they sell at a cheaper rate, add something in there people like, etc..., then why would people go to buy the more expensive kind? They've been buying illegally for the past and that didn't seem to phase them, so why stop?

Sage

July 17th, 2009, 01:08 AM

There is a potential problem I see with it. If it is cheaper to buy illegally, then why would you buy legally? There would still be illegal growing areas and if they sell at a cheaper rate, add something in there people like, etc..., then why would people go to buy the more expensive kind? They've been buying illegally for the past and that didn't seem to phase them, so why stop?

Buying illegally can get you into unwanted connections with gangs and dealers.

INFERNO

July 17th, 2009, 02:26 AM

Buying illegally can get you into unwanted connections with gangs and dealers.

Yes that is true. But if the person was buying illegally before, then either they were growing it themselves or had already had connections with dealers and possibly also gangs. They have no problem continuing it (unless something happens and they find some other dealer), so I don't entirely understand the point you're making. The gangs will be around even if marijuana is legalized, it may reduce some but gangs will still be present and so will dealers (either still for marijuana or for other drugs).

ManyPearTree

July 17th, 2009, 10:03 AM

I completely disagree with the concept of marijuana being legal for a few reasons:

1. A large percentage people who try the drug become addicted
to it.

2. All the money we've paid police departements to cleanse the drug from our streets will go to waste.

3. Why does the government need more money? They've got the tabacco companies paying them billions of dollars to keep their product on the rack.

4. Drug smuggling from Mexico will rise indefinenitly due to increase in sales. (not to mention illeagal aliens).

If my knowledge is incorrect please let me know..

INFERNO

July 17th, 2009, 02:38 PM

1. A large percentage people who try the drug become addicted
to it.

This is true for tobacco also yet that is legal.

2. All the money we've paid police departements to cleanse the drug from our streets will go to waste.

Not really. There would still be numerous other drugs that would be illegal for the police departments to try and remove. But, consider this, if the government is to sell it legally and everyone else who sells it is illegal, then there still is a need to remove those illegal sources.

3. Why does the government need more money? They've got the tabacco companies paying them billions of dollars to keep their product on the rack.

Right now the economy isn't in the greatest of shape. I do believe it is getting better but if the government has marijuana legalized, then perhaps taxes (i.e. income tax and such) can be lowered. It would also allow the government to spend more money in areas that need it more without driving itself into debt.

4. Drug smuggling from Mexico will rise indefinenitly due to increase in sales. (not to mention illeagal aliens).

This is true. Although this is one reason why the police departments would still be needed.

Poetic Folly

July 17th, 2009, 10:30 PM

1. A large percentage people who try the drug become addicted
to it.

It isn't addictive...

2. All the money we've paid police departements to cleanse the drug from our streets will go to waste.

Marijuana is a soft core drug, alcohol is probably worse and what about heroine , cocaine, meth, all the strong addictive life threatening drugs...

3. Why does the government need more money? They've got the tabacco companies paying them billions of dollars to keep their product on the rack.

Why do they need more money? Yah, what a stupid idea, more money....

4. Drug smuggling from Mexico will rise indefinenitly due to increase in sales. (not to mention illeagal aliens).

And that's why we have police.(See statement 2)

If my knowledge is incorrect please let me know...

Absolutely.

Truth

July 18th, 2009, 01:47 AM

Poetic Folly

July 18th, 2009, 11:19 AM

If alchohol and smokes are legal, so should marijuana. D: It doesn't cause nearly the same amount of deaths. It would probably be the only thing i try, since i'm not that stupid, and my mom and dad did weed for 20+ years and didn't die from it.

There is a grand total of one death caused by marijuana. I am sure that there might be a few more indirectly (gangs fighting, etc) But there is a recorded 1 death.

Camazotz

July 18th, 2009, 02:16 PM

"No recorded deaths have ever occurred as a result of marijuana use, it is not physically addictive like alcohol or tobacco, and most doctors will agree it is safer to use."

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_culture11.shtml

Marijuana is not addictive, it's much safer than alcohol and tobacco, and there are no direct deaths from marijuana use. I'm not saying that everyone should use marijuana, but it should be legalized because of the effects it has such as relieving stress.

Whisper

July 18th, 2009, 03:45 PM

I'm not saying people die from it, I doubt it.

But the fact that you're quoting THAT as a credible source is laughable

INFERNO

July 18th, 2009, 05:36 PM

There is a grand total of one death caused by marijuana. I am sure that there might be a few more indirectly (gangs fighting, etc) But there is a recorded 1 death.

Do you mind citing the source that says there is only 1 recorded death?

To Camazotz, marijuana is psychologically addictive, hence, it is addictive. Also, although you did cite a source, it's a source that makes me laugh. Wikipedia's sources would've been much better.

Poetic Folly

July 18th, 2009, 11:57 PM

Do you mind citing the source that says there is only 1 recorded death?

To Camazotz, marijuana is psychologically addictive, hence, it is addictive. Also, although you did cite a source, it's a source that makes me laugh. Wikipedia's sources would've been much better.

It's habit forming, but so is chewing gum each day, going on the internet. sex, masturbating, porn viewing,etc.
Can't remember where I read that, but here's a source for proof that there are 0 annual deaths from marijuana each year in the US. the only plausible deaths were also caused by marijuana combined with alcohol and/or other drugs.

INFERNO

July 19th, 2009, 03:07 AM

It's habit forming, but so is chewing gum each day, going on the internet. sex, masturbating, porn viewing,etc.
Can't remember where I read that, but here's a source for proof that there are 0 annual deaths from marijuana each year in the US. the only plausible deaths were also caused by marijuana combined with alcohol and/or other drugs.

Where is the source exactly? Talking about the info. the source has isn't giving a source. Do you have a link, a book, etc... to back up your claims?

Poetic Folly

July 19th, 2009, 03:14 AM

Sorry, posted it in a different thread, but tired now, I'll find it in the morning.

tripolar

July 19th, 2009, 01:55 PM

It's legal in Amsterdam and it works there, less people will go to jail for drug possession, trafficking, or growing of marijuana, BUT if it is legalized in the U.S. the government will regulate it and tax it heavily like tobacco and alcohol, and they would want it sold in licensed businesses like ex. liquor license, and it would be still illegal for individual people to sell it, and people would not want to pay the tax riddled price and still buy it from dealers. Why can't it be sold by dealers, well the dealers are not going to pay taxes on the money made from sales. It could work but they would be problems, and if it was made legal it would end up in prohibition eventually like alcohol in the 1930's.

punkjake

July 19th, 2009, 11:51 PM

Personal attacks are not needed in a debate, save them for another time and place.

tee hee :D lol
but if there was to a legalaztion in weed,like a lot of people been saying it would reduce gangs,be taxed and make money,and wouldn't take up some much rooms in jail

pros:
better economy
less jail space for people who do it
crime reduction

cons:
people would be questioning if other drugs such as "coke" and shrooms could be legal
there proably be less college students
there still could be illegal uses like super enhancing it making it like coke

Antares

July 20th, 2009, 12:18 AM

tee hee :D lol
but if there was to a legalaztion in weed,like a lot of people been saying it would reduce gangs,be taxed and make money,and wouldn't take up some much rooms in jail

pros:
better economy
less jail space for people who do it
crime reduction

cons:
people would be questioning if other drugs such as "coke" and shrooms could be legal
there proably be less college students
there still could be illegal uses like super enhancing it making it like coke

Seriously people, it won't stimulate the economy. First, it is extremely difficult for the government to keep track of and tax so it won't help that way. I don't think it will be a great thing for people to detract money from essential goods for their pot fix. If marijuana has been underground for this long, why would they come to the surface and expand their "businesses" to a taxable thing that has to be constantly checked and enforced and such.
I think its stupid to legalize marijuana. Just keep things the same.

Poetic Folly

July 20th, 2009, 12:41 AM

cons:
people would be questioning if other drugs such as "coke" and shrooms could
Marijuana and cocaine and magic mushrooms are tthree highly different drugs,
there proably be less college students
College is the place where most people have parties and smoke marijuana, legal or not.

there still could be illegal uses like super enhancing it making it like coke

Cocaine and marijuana are not alike at all. You can't super enhance it to "become like coke".
Cannabis, also known as marijuana, marihuana, and ganja (from Sanskrit: गांजा gañjā, hemp), as well as weed, pot, bud, grass, herb or reefer, among many nicknames, refers to any number of preparations of psychoactive drug from the Cannabis plant. The most common form is the natural herbal form.

Cocaine (benzoylmethylecgonine) is a crystalline tropane alkaloid that is obtained from the leaves of the coca plant. The name comes from "coca" in addition to the alkaloid suffix -ine, forming cocaine. It is both a stimulant of the central nervous system and an appetite suppressant. Specifically, it is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and a serotonin reuptake inhibitor, which mediates functionality of such as an exogenous DAT ligand. Because of the way it affects the mesolimbic reward pathway, cocaine is addictive.

Cocaine is highly addictive and it suppresses your appetite. Marijuana can be habit forming but is not addictive. It makes you hungrier(aka munchies). Also, cocaine

Medical use of cocaine: (Wikipedia)
Cocaine was historically useful as a topical anesthetic in eye and nasal surgery, although it is now predominantly used for nasal and lacrimal duct surgery. The major disadvantages of this use are cocaine's intense vasoconstrictor activity and potential for cardiovascular toxicity. Cocaine has since been largely replaced in Western medicine by synthetic local anaesthetics such as benzocaine, proparacaine, lignocaine/xylocaine/lidocaine, and tetracaine though it remains available for use if specified. If vasoconstriction is desired for a procedure (as it reduces bleeding), the anesthetic is combined with a vasoconstrictor such as phenylephrine or epinephrine. In Australia it is currently prescribed for use as a local anesthetic for conditions such as mouth and lung ulcers. Some ENT specialists occasionally use cocaine within the practice when performing procedures such as nasal cauterization. In this scenario dissolved cocaine is soaked into a ball of cotton wool, which is placed in the nostril for the 10–15 minutes immediately prior to the procedure, thus performing the dual role of both numbing the area to be cauterized and also vasoconstriction. Even when used this way, some of the used cocaine may be absorbed through oral or nasal mucosa and give systemic effects.
In 2005, researchers from Kyoto University Hospital proposed the use of cocaine in conjunction with phenylephrine administered in the form of an eye drop as a diagnostic test for Parkinson's disease.[80]

Medical Uses for Cannabis: (Well, it has a whole page, so)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

So, ignorant babbling basically.

Bougainvillea

July 20th, 2009, 12:51 AM

Seriously people, it won't stimulate the economy. First, it is extremely difficult for the government to keep track of and tax so it won't help that way. I don't think it will be a great thing for people to detract money from essential goods for their pot fix. If marijuana has been underground for this long, why would they come to the surface and expand their "businesses" to a taxable thing that has to be constantly checked and enforced and such.
I think its stupid to legalize marijuana. Just keep things the same.

THANK YOU!
Seriously. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say.
:banana:

INFERNO

July 20th, 2009, 01:45 AM

pros:
better economy
less jail space for people who do it
crime reduction

There's over a million or close to one million drug arrests in the USA per year. Although marijuana possession and usage is a fair number, there'd still be quite a few in jail for drug usage, possession, etc... . The crime reduction is hard to say. Yes it could hurt dealers and possibly gangs but it's not going to have an immense effect on it because there are many other illegal drugs still for the drug market.

cons:
people would be questioning if other drugs such as "coke" and shrooms could be legal

I don't see how this is a con or a pro.

there proably be less college students

:lol: Unless you have some data to back that up, then I highly doubt it.

there still could be illegal uses like super enhancing it making it like coke

Not possible. You can increase the concentration of marijuana all you want but from a purely chemical perspective, cocaine and marijuana are nothing alike. You can lace marijuana with whatever you want but it's not going to become cocaine.

polarbear

July 20th, 2009, 03:06 AM

yes!!!! it would be great for the u.s econamy and i spelt that wrong cuz i have adhd and dyslexia not cuz i smoke marijuana. marijuana actualy helps cuz it calms my brain so it can then read better and distinguish the letters slower but better so ha lol i hade to spell cheack like half this [email protected]#%

punkjake

July 20th, 2009, 11:28 PM

:lol: Unless you have some data to back that up, then I highly doubt it.

Not possible. You can increase the concentration of marijuana all you want but from a purely chemical perspective, cocaine and marijuana are nothing alike. You can lace marijuana with whatever you want but it's not going to become cocaine.
1.Even though i do think it should be legal it would make people lazy and posible for not studying or wanting to try.
2.What i meant is that people might be mixing it WITH coke but maybe the po po(thats what we call the police in my area;) ) or the goverment wouldn't ,well proabaly know.You can smoke coke.My cousin is a X addict they told me all the stuff and what it does
3.also when drug test are given it mite be harder to demtermine if it is a legal drug(weed) to a illegal(coke)

INFERNO

July 20th, 2009, 11:41 PM

1.Even though i do think it should be legal it would make people lazy and posible for not studying or wanting to try.

Even if that is so, the amount would be so small. People would still be in university and people who did marijuana while it was illegal would be the ones more likely to do it while it was legal.

2.What i meant is that people might be mixing it WITH coke but maybe the po po(thats what we call the police in my area;) ) or the goverment wouldn't ,well proabaly know.You can smoke coke.My cousin is a X addict they told me all the stuff and what it does

Assuming you made marijuana legal, then cocaine would still be illegal. Mixing cocaine and marijuana together would still alert the police and government anyways. I'm not a user of marijuana nor cocaine and I can give you some information on them from a purely academic perspective.

3.also when drug test are given it mite be harder to demtermine if it is a legal drug(weed) to a illegal(coke)

How? They are very different chemically. If you mixed the two together then took it, then you'd find both in the same person. I'm not understanding your argument at all.

SlappyTwinkle

July 21st, 2009, 12:06 AM

Poetic Folly

July 21st, 2009, 02:46 AM

1.Even though i do think it should be legal it would make people lazy and posible for not studying or wanting to try.
Explain how this would happen and even if this is true, what's stopping the people that are already smoking illegally.
2.What i meant is that people might be mixing it WITH coke but maybe the police or the goverment wouldn't ,well proabaly know.You can smoke coke.My cousin is a X addict they told me all the stuff and what it does
Most of us are well aware that you can smoke cocaine. But cocaine
http://www.canpages.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/image-of-cocaine.jpg
Marijuana
http://z.about.com/d/alcoholism/1/0/2/v/1/marijuana11.jpg
Don't see why someone would mix them and how they cops wouldn't know. It's like mixing tobacco and marijuana, it's not hard to tell the difference.

3.also when drug test are given it mite be harder to demtermine if it is a legal drug(weed) to a illegal(coke)

They are two different drugs and wouldn't confuse results....

Number02

July 21st, 2009, 03:45 AM

If it was legal wouldn't it be relatively easy to impose the same restrictions on it that cigarettes have? Certain age to buy, certain age to smoke etc. etc. Warnings on the packets, btu fater that what they do is up to them. If they get busted breakin the rules, then, they get busted. If they don't then fair play to them

INFERNO

July 21st, 2009, 05:08 PM

i think pot should be legal to a certain extent, you shouldn't be able to buy huge amounts. but at the same time i think it should be left illegal because of one thing, it's not as fun to smoke if it's legal (just my opinion).

So it should be legal only if you're going to buy small amounts but then it should be illegal because it's no longer as fun to use?

SlappyTwinkle

July 21st, 2009, 05:09 PM

yes those are my do ironic opinions! :)

Poetic Folly

July 21st, 2009, 06:55 PM

You should be able to buy as much as you want. I personally think that if they(generic term) sell regular and vaporized joints, it would sell well.

SlappyTwinkle

July 21st, 2009, 06:56 PM

probably.

punkjake

July 30th, 2009, 12:32 AM

Explain how this would happen and even if this is true, what's stopping the people that are already smoking illegally.

well i know pot ,like my cousins told me it makes you very sleepy and lazy, and even at times parodied.

Callwaiting

July 30th, 2009, 10:20 AM

Narrow minded? I can deal with that. My information isn't from DARE.

You don't think people don't have jobs because they are doing drugs? I know of a lot of people that don't have jobs to to drug problems. And yes, addicting is the right word. People continuously do it, and can't stop.

And some people would buy it illegally. Buying is from Hector Sanchez in Mexico would be cheaper than buying it from Wal-Mart - and there are some people so desperate that they would need to buy it from Mexico.

You realise that marijuana is marijuana right, not "drugs".
drugs is a collective term which has no relevance to this discussion at all.

Obviously you can become physically addicted to some substances which fall under the heading of drugs, but marijuana is not one of those substances.

@ Punkjake - you obviously haven't had any personal experience with marijuana. Your cousins were either talking about the experience of being high (which wears off completely after a few hours) or they're also misinformed and spitting up the "lazy stoner" government propaganda which has been shoved down everyone's throats as of late.

Seriously people, it won't stimulate the economy. First, it is extremely difficult for the government to keep track of and tax so it won't help that way. I don't think it will be a great thing for people to detract money from essential goods for their pot fix. If marijuana has been underground for this long, why would they come to the surface and expand their "businesses" to a taxable thing that has to be constantly checked and enforced and such.
I think its stupid to legalize marijuana. Just keep things the same.

How exactly would it be harder to keep track of than alcohol or cigarettes? That's like saying red M&M's are harder to count than blue M&M's. You know tobacco is also a plant right, so if your argument was that people can just grow their own then you're wrong.

Not only will the legalisation of marijuana help the economy through raw cannabis sales, it'll open up the market for hemp-produced paper (meaning less environmental damage, cheap paper exports), biomass fuels(petrol alternative, cheap plastics, oil exports) and fiber (produces 250% more fiber than cotton and can be used for clothes, rope and other fabrics)
I think you'll agree that this offsets the money wasted on a pot "fix", and besides, the money would most likely come out of cash usually spent on alcohol or cigarettes, not groceries.

On your expanding businesses point, we obviously need a way to boost the economy in these times, and that's a reason why they might consider this.

All in all, the world is a constantly evolving place and getting stuck in a rut isn't going to be beneficial to anyone.
The amount of time the government wastes on implementing new policies nobody asked for could be better used on this. That way they're actually doing something for the good of the country instead of their own reputations.

punkjake

August 10th, 2009, 08:16 AM

[QUOTE=Callwaiting;594830]

@ Punkjake - you obviously haven't had any personal experience with marijuana. Your cousins were either talking about the experience of being high (which wears off completely after a few hours) or they're also misinformed and spitting up the "lazy stoner" government propaganda which has been shoved down everyone's throats as of late.

IDK about that:D:rolleyes: and yes i did SEE them get high off it,and also my bigger bros gf does it she seems more hyper than lazy XD

thedudeman

August 10th, 2009, 02:32 PM

FilmStudentWannabe

August 10th, 2009, 05:42 PM

Of course pot should be legal it's far less harmful than alchohol and it's YOUR choice not the goverments.

Atonement

August 10th, 2009, 07:09 PM

Of course pot should be legal it's far less harmful than alchohol and it's YOUR choice not the goverments.

I guess we should allow 5 year olds to drive too. Its their choice, not the governments, right? I agree with yourpoint, but its a poor way to support it.

INFERNO

August 11th, 2009, 10:46 AM

all you kids are so ignorant on marijuana, i can tell youve never even smoked it, or if you have it was only a few times
weed makes me lazy, hungry, and happy, i dont go and drive, and tests have been done that show marijuana as a safer drug to drive on then alcohol

Tests have also shown that if you have a high enough concentration of THC then you're very impaired, just like alcohol. If you take only a bit then you're not as impaired but the same is said for alcohol.

the fact is, lots of kids lives have been fucked over because they wanna smoke some weed, legalization would revitalize the eceonomy, in fact, its easier to get weed then alcohol because its illegal and theres no regulation, why not make it safer?

Kids have been screwed over for numerous reasons, I hardly think that's a reasonable argument. The problem with making it legal is you still have to remove the illegal vendors. After all, if there's no regulation when it's illegal and cheaper when it's illegal, and people got it when it was illegal, why should they suddenly flop over to buying it legally?

and making it legal would not make it easier to get, it would not create more addicts, there not gunna sell weed at a sevey, theyd probably have specially designated stores

Making it legal still has chances of creating new addicts and helping current addicts get their fix. It doesn't matter how the pot is sold, legal or illegal, it would still have the same reaction on the person.

i mean come on people, go smoke some weed for yourself and see how harmless this stuff really is

Suggesting for people go try something illegal just to see if someone is right on an online forum? :lol:

Of course pot should be legal it's far less harmful than alchohol and it's YOUR choice not the goverments.

Technically killing someone, taking 5 pounds of heroin and stealing a few million dollars are all your choice not the government's. So I don't see the argument you're trying to make on that point. If you're to talk about choices, then a parent has the choice to give their keys to their 8-year old or to burn down a house, etc... . None of those have anything to do with the choices the government makes. The government can make them illegal but the choice to do them still remains the same.

JJSSHH

August 12th, 2009, 01:34 PM

YES! it should be legal because it does less damage 2 your body than achoholic bevreges

thedudeman

August 12th, 2009, 03:04 PM

Kids have been screwed over for numerous reasons, I hardly think that's a reasonable argument. The problem with making it legal is you still have to remove the illegal vendors. After all, if there's no regulation when it's illegal and cheaper when it's illegal, and people got it when it was illegal, why should they suddenly flop over to buying it legally?

Making it legal still has chances of creating new addicts and helping current addicts get their fix. It doesn't matter how the pot is sold, legal or illegal, it would still have the same reaction on the person.

Suggesting for people go try something illegal just to see if someone is right on an online forum? :lol:

Technically killing someone, taking 5 pounds of heroin and stealing a few million dollars are all your choice not the government's. So I don't see the argument you're trying to make on that point. If you're to talk about choices, then a parent has the choice to give their keys to their 8-year old or to burn down a house, etc... . None of those have anything to do with the choices the government makes. The government can make them illegal but the choice to do them still remains the same.

actually marijuana will become cheaper legal, they will flop over because its safer and cheaper, they will also control the thc content so you dont buy super strong marijuana unless you want it strong, just like alcohol

exactly, you just proved my point, whether its sold legally or illegally people are still gunna get addicted and seek it out, so making it legal would just make it so that people wouldnt get stupid marijuana charges, theres also the point that weed wont be as popular when it goes commercial, making less addicts, i can tell you dont smoke a lot of weed or deal with dealers, your to ignorant to speak on how easy it is to get marijuana illegally, way easier then getting alcohol, another thing, marijuana is not a very addictive drug, unless you smoke it all day everyday your not gunna get addicted, you need personal experiences with marijuana to know what goes on with it illegally, and i have lots of that, so i know that legally it would be a lot safer for people

im a daredevil, what can i say

then this supports that prohibition should be put in state again, remember this is a democracy and if the majority of the people want weed and are gunna get it and smoke it regardless, then why keep it illegal? its just making it safer legally and healthwise

INFERNO

August 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM

actually marijuana will become cheaper legal, they will flop over because its safer and cheaper, they will also control the thc content so you dont buy super strong marijuana unless you want it strong, just like alcohol

What evidence do you have that it will become cheaper?

exactly, you just proved my point, whether its sold legally or illegally people are still gunna get addicted and seek it out, so making it legal would just make it so that people wouldnt get stupid marijuana charges, theres also the point that weed wont be as popular when it goes commercial, making less addicts, i can tell you dont smoke a lot of weed or deal with dealers, your to ignorant to speak on how easy it is to get marijuana illegally, way easier then getting alcohol, another thing, marijuana is not a very addictive drug, unless you smoke it all day everyday your not gunna get addicted, you need personal experiences with marijuana to know what goes on with it illegally, and i have lots of that, so i know that legally it would be a lot safer for people

Thank you for calling me ignorant, much appreciated. I don't have personal experiences with it, you're right on that, however, I do have experience from the medical pharmacological side of it.

And why wouldn't people get "stupid marijuana charges"? If anything, I would think that the government would tax it quite a lot just as gas and alcohol are.

You claimed before that for some reason it will be cheaper when it's legal so if that's the case, then wouldn't that allow more people to be addicted because they could buy more for less?

How does making it legal suddenly make it safer? People can still smoke a lot of it, get a high THC concentration in them and then operate machinery or a vehicle. It's just like for alcohol, if you drink some of it and don't do anything then you're safe but if you drink some and drive then you're not as safe. So I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make.

then this supports that prohibition should be put in state again, remember this is a democracy and if the majority of the people want weed and are gunna get it and smoke it regardless, then why keep it illegal? its just making it safer legally and healthwise

The same thing would be sold legally or illegally so what makes it suddenly safer and more healthy when it's legal? It's not going to act any differently on your body when it's legal and if you smoke a lot of it then drive a car, you're quite impaired. Making it legal or illegal has no effect on that.

As I said above, if they make it legal, then why wouldn't they tax the hell out of it? If they make it legal then it's going to cost quite a lot to set up the proper facilities where it can be sold.

YES! it should be legal because it does less damage 2 your body than achoholic bevreges

So? If you smoke it then it does more damage than smoking cigarettes. I don't see what's so special about alcohol that it's being used as a comparison against pot.

thedudeman

August 12th, 2009, 08:12 PM

What evidence do you have that it will become cheaper?

Thank you for calling me ignorant, much appreciated. I don't have personal experiences with it, you're right on that, however, I do have experience from the medical pharmacological side of it.

And why wouldn't people get "stupid marijuana charges"? If anything, I would think that the government would tax it quite a lot just as gas and alcohol are.

You claimed before that for some reason it will be cheaper when it's legal so if that's the case, then wouldn't that allow more people to be addicted because they could buy more for less?

How does making it legal suddenly make it safer? People can still smoke a lot of it, get a high THC concentration in them and then operate machinery or a vehicle. It's just like for alcohol, if you drink some of it and don't do anything then you're safe but if you drink some and drive then you're not as safe. So I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make.

The same thing would be sold legally or illegally so what makes it suddenly safer and more healthy when it's legal? It's not going to act any differently on your body when it's legal and if you smoke a lot of it then drive a car, you're quite impaired. Making it legal or illegal has no effect on that.

As I said above, if they make it legal, then why wouldn't they tax the hell out of it? If they make it legal then it's going to cost quite a lot to set up the proper facilities where it can be sold.

So? If you smoke it then it does more damage than smoking cigarettes. I don't see what's so special about alcohol that it's being used as a comparison against pot.

stupid marijuana charges, as in getting arrested for smoking a joint with there friends, things like that, your right the possibility for addiction would be higher, and you could buy more for less because it would be grown in vast amounts by different companys just like cigarettes and alcohol, and in different thc amounts, also the government is aware about marijuana prices and would want to match or make less so people are less likely to buy off the streets then shops, another thing about marijuana, is it makes you crave sweet food and lowers your motivation, making marijuana users more likelym to eat and sit around and less likely to operate machinery, unlike alcohol which generally makes people have overconfidence and anger in social situations, ever hung out with a stoner? i doubt it, they sit on the couch and eat, ever hung with a drunk? they fight, think there tough, and have lots of sex, huge difference

i know a lot about the medical pharmaceutical side of marijuana to, in fact ive done a lot of studying on it, plus i know the illegal side, i know marijuana front and back, so i dont understand why you should get to make decisions on it when you dont know about it as much as me

what makes it more healthy is it is now grown by the government, not street dealers, lots of street dealers lace the weed with other drugs in order for it to make a bigger impact on the user so they will think its good weed and come back for more, this wont happen as often if its clean weed or lower thc content, or even if its high thc content it will be 100% clean, yes i know cigarettes have rat poison blah blah blah, but there going to sell it in bud form, not cigarette form, and its going to be sold in special shops, because of its strong smell they wont sell it in a sevey, so it will be even harder to get for kids

your not very aware about the medicinal uses of thc are you? thc actually helps prevent cancer, lots of cancer patients use hash oil and have lived much longer because of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw -runfrom the cure
it does far less damage then cigarettes actually, especially since know one has ever died from marijuana, it can also be ingested through a brownie, it doesnt have to be smoked

so here is what i think will happen when legalized, far less street dealers to none, just like alcohol
harder to get for kids, because of special shops, and remember, dealers dont have cameras and report to the police if a kid tries to buy some weed, and the government will sell same or maybe less then prices now in order to put the street dealers out of business
i dont think legalization will create more users, it may just create a new drug for older people to use, if used occasionally marijuana decreases anxiety and depression, which may help solve a lot of problems in america if it is smoked by some of the stressed out individuals who run this country:)
i used to smoke twice a week, it decreased my anxiety and depression and made life much more managable with no side effects, besides reports that its linked to testicular cancer which has not been proven yet, especially since it is so widely smoked and there has been no conclusive evidence that heavy use makes a difference, the only connection is that a lot of the people in er for test cancer smoked occasionally, and tons of other people smoke occasionally which wasnt included in the report, its a widely used drug, i bet if you asked almost every person in the hospital most people would say they have used or use marijuana occaisonally, not just the test cancer patients

computerwizard

August 13th, 2009, 12:33 AM

And the 'people will import it because it's cheaper' is bs.
People still legally buy CDs, instead of just pirating it.
Pirating is cheaper, so why not?
Because people like to be 'good citizens'.
It seems to be a weak point to defend them on the basis of their devoted citizenship. For people who are really itching for this stuff *I won't say they are addicted, but they do strongly desire it...* they won't care about what people think of their patriotism or devotion to ethics, they will care about how to get it and where to get it cheapest so they can get more 'bang for their buck'. Legalizing it is insane, and will cause all kinds of competitive markets for the thugs that are currently pushing this stuff illegally. Its like giving them an open market to do their darkest bidding!

Jman35

August 13th, 2009, 01:32 AM

More people are killed by drunk drivers in a week, then people using marijuana and driving U.I in a year.

Marijuana I think should definitely be legal, it is in some states already, and it's just a natural grown plant. If it is not legalized, it will just happen in the streets anyway, it's a pretty common drug, and from what I've looked up, you cannot overdose on it, in anyway.

I am for legalizing, but with an age limit of course.

INFERNO

August 13th, 2009, 03:47 AM

stupid marijuana charges, as in getting arrested for smoking a joint with there friends, things like that, your right the possibility for addiction would be higher

You've now contradicted yourself. Before you said making it legal would lead to fewer addicts, hence, lower the possibility of addiction.

the government is aware about marijuana prices and would want to match or make less so people are less likely to buy off the streets then shops

I highly doubt that all illegal marijuana dealers sell weed for the same price. So if the government lowers the price, some dealers may still be lower. If the government wants some regulation by quantity then that may cause an issue.

another thing about marijuana, is it makes you crave sweet food and lowers your motivation, making marijuana users more likelym to eat and sit around and less likely to operate machinery, unlike alcohol which generally makes people have overconfidence and anger in social situations, ever hung out with a stoner? i doubt it, they sit on the couch and eat, ever hung with a drunk? they fight, think there tough, and have lots of sex, huge difference

You can stop assuming false things about me now if you like. Yes I have been around drunks and no, they don't all fight. Some babble endlessly, some get sad, some become hilarious, some get angry, etc... . Some also just plop down and drink and drink. So the comparison you're making there is not entirely correct.

i know a lot about the medical pharmaceutical side of marijuana to, in fact ive done a lot of studying on it, plus i know the illegal side, i know marijuana front and back, so i dont understand why you should get to make decisions on it when you dont know about it as much as me

Seeing as how neither of us know how much the other knows I'm amazed you are concluding you know more.

But if we're to take your logic, then what if someone knows more about it than you? Do you not get to make decisions? That's exactly what you're saying to me.

what makes it more healthy is it is now grown by the government, not street dealers, lots of street dealers lace the weed with other drugs in order for it to make a bigger impact on the user so they will think its good weed and come back for more

If the users like the illegal laced weed then why would they go for the legal, not as good weed?

your not very aware about the medicinal uses of thc are you? thc actually helps prevent cancer, lots of cancer patients use hash oil and have lived much longer because of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw-run from the cure

Once again, you're unaware of how much I know and I'm unaware of how much you know. So I assume that since I didn't mention the medicinal uses, I must therefore know nothing about it. Since you didn't mention some other medicinal uses, then does that mean you don't know those? That's the problem when one attempts to make assumptions with no justification.

Your link doesn't work.

it does far less damage then cigarettes actually, especially since know one has ever died from marijuana, it can also be ingested through a brownie, it doesnt have to be smoked

Wrong.

A 2007 study from New Zealand, for example, examined the effects of cannabis on lung capacity. The results suggested that marijuana smoke compromised lung efficiency between 2.5 and five times more than tobacco smoke

CLICKIE HERE #1 (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Smoking+causes+much+damage+tobacco+Study/1865568/story.html)

According to the study, smoking three marijuana cigarettes a day can cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes. And those who smoke both marijuana and cigarettes are further increasing their risk of lung damage.

CLICKIE HERE #2 (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/smoking-marijuana-more-than.html)

Beasley's team calculates that, in terms of airflow obstruction, one marijuana joint equaled the effect of smoking 2.5 to five cigarettes at once. The finding is "of major public health significance," write the researchers.

CLICKIE HERE #3 (http://www.webmd.com/news/20070731/smoking-pot-may-damage-lungs)

So, what is your evidence to show it isn't as harmful?

so here is what i think will happen when legalized, far less street dealers to none, just like alcohol

You mentioned above that some dealers lace the weed. If they lace it and people like it laced and the government doesn't lace it, then why wouldn't they return to the dealers?

harder to get for kids, because of special shops, and remember, dealers dont have cameras and report to the police if a kid tries to buy some weed, and the government will sell same or maybe less then prices now in order to put the street dealers out of business

You acknowledged at the beginning of this post that it has a higher risk of creating more addicts if the prices are low enough. So now the government has an issue: make it lower and get more addicts or make it higher and get addicts also.

i dont think legalization will create more users, it may just create a new drug for older people to use, if used occasionally marijuana decreases anxiety and depression, which may help solve a lot of problems in america if it is smoked by some of the stressed out individuals who run this country:)

Wrong. It's already being used in various forms occasionally for the elderly, such as for Parkinson's Disease and Crohn's Disease and others.

Seattle resident Betty Hiatt, 81, has battled cancer, Parkinson's disease, and Crohn's disease, and uses marijuana along with a plethora of prescription medications. "It's like any other medicine for me," Hiatt said. "But I don't know that I'd be alive without it."

Medical-marijuana activists say there are thousands of other elderly people using the drug. As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the legality of states' medical-marijuana laws, older users are becoming important political symbols because they don't fit the stereotype of the typical pot smoker.

In a recent poll conducted by the American Association of Retired People, 72 percent of those ages 45 and older supported the legal use of medical marijuana. The drug is thought to help patients with conditions ranging from multiple sclerosis to glaucoma, arthritis, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's disease.

CLICKIE HERE #4 (http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2005/elderly-embrace-medical.html)

i used to smoke twice a week, it decreased my anxiety and depression and made life much more managable with no side effects, besides reports that its linked to testicular cancer which has not been proven yet, especially since it is so widely smoked and there has been no conclusive evidence that heavy use makes a difference, the only connection is that a lot of the people in er for test cancer smoked occasionally, and tons of other people smoke occasionally which wasnt included in the report, its a widely used drug, i bet if you asked almost every person in the hospital most people would say they have used or use marijuana occaisonally, not just the test cancer patients

Wrong.

Long-term or chronic marijuana use has been linked to damage in the lungs. Marijuana use is linked to bronchitis and the development of emphysema. There have been reports of cancers of the respiratory and upper digestive tracts in heavy users. Some research demonstrates that cannabis impairs the immune system in animals.

While marijuana is the most abused of the illicit drugs, the majority of Americans do not use cannabis. Only 5 percent of the entire adult population and 15% of the college population have used marijuana in the past month. I'm sure I'd get numerous answers with these numbers.

CLICKIE HERE #5 (http://www.sa.psu.edu/UHS/healthinformation/patientlibrary/health/marijuana.cfm)

Impairments of human cognition and learning following chronic marijuana use are of serious concern, but have not been clearly demonstrated. To determine whether such impairments occurred, this study compared performance of adult marijuana users and non-users (N=144 andN=72, respectively) matched on intellectual functioning before the onset of drug use, i.e., on scores from standardized tests administered during the fourth grade of grammar school (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills). Subjects were given the twelfth grade versions of these tests (Iowa Tests of Educational Development) and other, computerized cognitive tests in successive test sessions. ldquoHeavyrdquo marijuana use (defined by use seven or more times weekly) was associated with deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression in the Iowa Tests of Educational Development and selective impairments in memory retrieval processes in Buschke's Test. The retrieval impairments were restricted to words that were easy to visualize. Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., ldquolightrdquo and ldquointermediaterdquo marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition (ldquofuzzyrdquo concepts) of a Concept Formation test.

CLICKIE #6 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5j3862lp796m854/)

thedudeman

August 13th, 2009, 02:37 PM

You've now contradicted yourself. Before you said making it legal would lead to fewer addicts, hence, lower the possibility of addiction.

I highly doubt that all illegal marijuana dealers sell weed for the same price. So if the government lowers the price, some dealers may still be lower. If the government wants some regulation by quantity then that may cause an issue.

You can stop assuming false things about me now if you like. Yes I have been around drunks and no, they don't all fight. Some babble endlessly, some get sad, some become hilarious, some get angry, etc... . Some also just plop down and drink and drink. So the comparison you're making there is not entirely correct.

Seeing as how neither of us know how much the other knows I'm amazed you are concluding you know more.

But if we're to take your logic, then what if someone knows more about it than you? Do you not get to make decisions? That's exactly what you're saying to me.

If the users like the illegal laced weed then why would they go for the legal, not as good weed?

Once again, you're unaware of how much I know and I'm unaware of how much you know. So I assume that since I didn't mention the medicinal uses, I must therefore know nothing about it. Since you didn't mention some other medicinal uses, then does that mean you don't know those? That's the problem when one attempts to make assumptions with no justification.

Your link doesn't work.

Wrong.

CLICKIE HERE #1 (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Smoking+causes+much+damage+tobacco+Study/1865568/story.html)

CLICKIE HERE #2 (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/smoking-marijuana-more-than.html)

CLICKIE HERE #3 (http://www.webmd.com/news/20070731/smoking-pot-may-damage-lungs)

So, what is your evidence to show it isn't as harmful?

You mentioned above that some dealers lace the weed. If they lace it and people like it laced and the government doesn't lace it, then why wouldn't they return to the dealers?

You acknowledged at the beginning of this post that it has a higher risk of creating more addicts if the prices are low enough. So now the government has an issue: make it lower and get more addicts or make it higher and get addicts also.

Wrong. It's already being used in various forms occasionally for the elderly, such as for Parkinson's Disease and Crohn's Disease and others.

CLICKIE HERE #4 (http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2005/elderly-embrace-medical.html)

Wrong.

I'm sure I'd get numerous answers with these numbers.

CLICKIE HERE #5 (http://www.sa.psu.edu/UHS/healthinformation/patientlibrary/health/marijuana.cfm)

CLICKIE #6 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5j3862lp796m854/)

im not sure what would happen, cultural ideas around marijuana is what makes it so popular, so if it goes commercial who knows?

yes they do sell for the same price, there are set prices and lowering the prices wouldnt bnefit dealers because it would mean MUCH more dealing, aka putting themselves at risk, or not even making much money leading to them qutting dealing, remember, people dont buy moonshine from the guy next to the liquor store

the percentage of kids who get beat by there drunk dads is a lot higher then kids who get beat by there stoned dads, im sure

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health1.shtml, enter it in the url bar, same as the youtube link above

most marijuana users arent really in it for a coke or pcp high, there in it for the weed, so if they find out you can buy clean marijuana with no additives they will buy that, PEOPLE DONT LIKE SMOKING THINGS THERE UNAWARE OF,

http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/421/1/Marijuana-Is-Addictive---So-What/Page1.html put it in the url bar

i didnt deny its use for the elderly at all, i was putting forth its medical probabilities to relieve anxiety an depression, which would help relieve stress for all the older individuals who wont smoke because its prohibited
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=226
put it in the url bar

"it does far less damage then cigarettes actually, especially since know one has ever died from marijuana, it can also be ingested through a brownie, it doesnt have to be smoked"

"Wrong."

you have no conclusive evidence that its more harmful then cigarettes
and if you do the only wrong thing about that wud be the cigarette part
WRONG. lol

sorry for giving undetailed answers my right hand is broken

INFERNO

August 14th, 2009, 12:04 AM

the percentage of kids who get beat by there drunk dads is a lot higher then kids who get beat by there stoned dads, im sure

I don't see any evidence for your claim and it seems to be just a random claim at that. You're comparing alcoholic fathers vs. stoned fathers. Why not compare stoned fathers vs. tobacco fathers? Seems like a completely mindless comparison to me.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health1.shtml, enter it in the url bar, same as the youtube link above

That link has a study which seems rather biased. The cigarette smokers smoked seven times more smoke than marijuana smokers. Also, the duration of time for smoking was greater for cigarette smokers. So right off the bat, that seems fairly biased to me.

However, the link also pointed out this nice bundle of information:

"My own feeling is that marijuana smokers probably will not
develop emphysema as a consequence of smoking marijuana," he
said, but cautioned that does not rule out the development of
other conditions like respiratory carcinoma.

most marijuana users arent really in it for a coke or pcp high, there in it for the weed, so if they find out you can buy clean marijuana with no additives they will buy that, PEOPLE DONT LIKE SMOKING THINGS THERE UNAWARE OF

You've contradicted yourself again:

lots of street dealers lace the weed with other drugs in order for it to make a bigger impact on the user so they will think its good weed and come back for more

http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/421/1/Marijuana-Is-Addictive---So-What/Page1.html put it in the url bar

This is quite an interesting article and it makes many good points. However, you just tossed a link there with no argument of your own. I don't know which ones you are attempting to use to refute which of mine. I see several faults with your article as it pertains to my points I gave in the previous post but I don't know if you're going for those or not. So give an argument in addition to a link.

i didnt deny its use for the elderly at all, i was putting forth its medical probabilities to relieve anxiety an depression, which would help relieve stress for all the older individuals who wont smoke because its prohibited
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=226
put it in the url bar

You do realize that your link provides some counters to the points it makes right? It's somewhat of a self-defeating source. For example:

One small study suggests that a chemical in cannabis might cause severe anxiety and unease in people with moderate to severe depression.

Although there is preliminary evidence that marijuana may have antidepressant properties, many argue there are also some important drawbacks to it's usage. There is a well-known phenomenon called 'amotivational syndrome' in which chronic cannabis users become apathetic, socially withdrawn, and perform at a level of everyday functioning well below their capacity prior to their marijuana use.

Although the depressed person may feel relief from their symptoms, this may be an illusion of well-being if the person loses motivation and productivity. Furthermore, if the drug is smoked, it can be far more harmful to the respiratory system that tobacco use because of the fact that it is not filtered

Here is some evidence from a different source indicating why it isn't as good for elderly:

In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug. This may be due to the increased heart rate as well as effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or those with cardiac vulnerabilities.
Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Muller JE. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001

you have no conclusive evidence that its more harmful then cigarettes
and if you do the only wrong thing about that wud be the cigarette part
WRONG. lol

I emphasized already that my points were about smoking the weed and not about eating it in a brownie.

Second, your argument is a double-edged one. You have no conclusive evidence that weed is not as harmful as cigarettes overall.

However, since you gave some nice links already, mainly your last one, I now have evidence without having to search for it myself of how marijuana can affect you WITHOUT you having to smoke it. Very kind of you :yeah:. Further down, you'll find some more evidence of how marijuana can affect you EVEN IF YOU DON'T SMOKE IT. :yes:

Tachycardia (an abnormally fast heart-beat), dizziness, anxiety, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, difficulty sleeping and confusion are all possible side effects of cannabis. This occurs even if you don't smoke it.

Although there is preliminary evidence that marijuana may have antidepressant properties, many argue there are also some important drawbacks to it's usage. There is a well-known phenomenon called 'amotivational syndrome' in which chronic cannabis users become apathetic, socially withdrawn, and perform at a level of everyday functioning well below their capacity prior to their marijuana use.

Although the depressed person may feel relief from their symptoms, this may be an illusion of well-being if the person loses motivation and productivity. Furthermore, if the drug is smoked, it can be far more harmful to the respiratory system that tobacco use because of the fact that it is not filtered. This shows that you can develop "amotivational syndrome" WITHOUT smoking. If you do smoke it, you can get that IN ADDITION to respiratory problems.

Marijuana appears to increase the risk of developing depression and/or schizophrenia the more that one uses it.... Once again, does not need to be smoked for this to happen. Marijuana will get into your brain regardless if you eat it or smoke it.

Marijuana contributes to depression and destroys natural sleep. Occurs even if you don't smoke it.

Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.
Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal: Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat, e-publication ahead of print, March 12, 2008

cole g

August 14th, 2009, 12:14 AM

hell...no!

INFERNO

August 14th, 2009, 12:28 AM

hell...no!

Damn, great argument and superb evidence.

rocklives

August 15th, 2009, 01:16 AM

i think that pot should be illegal but it also helps medically soo just give it 2 the ppl that need it

Antares

August 15th, 2009, 03:26 AM

Would all of you supporters approve of your children doing drugs at the age of...say 12 or 13?

Just curious

Θάνατος

August 15th, 2009, 03:29 AM

Would all of you supporters approve of your children doing drugs at the age of...say 12 or 13?

Just curious

True I agree good point here John.

Viral Death

August 15th, 2009, 03:18 PM

So you guys wouldnt mind if you were on a plane and everyone was high and including the piolits (cant spell this mourning)

thedudeman

August 16th, 2009, 09:42 PM

I don't see any evidence for your claim and it seems to be just a random claim at that. You're comparing alcoholic fathers vs. stoned fathers. Why not compare stoned fathers vs. tobacco fathers? Seems like a completely mindless comparison to me.

That link has a study which seems rather biased. The cigarette smokers smoked seven times more smoke than marijuana smokers. Also, the duration of time for smoking was greater for cigarette smokers. So right off the bat, that seems fairly biased to me.

However, the link also pointed out this nice bundle of information:

You've contradicted yourself again:

This is quite an interesting article and it makes many good points. However, you just tossed a link there with no argument of your own. I don't know which ones you are attempting to use to refute which of mine. I see several faults with your article as it pertains to my points I gave in the previous post but I don't know if you're going for those or not. So give an argument in addition to a link.

You do realize that your link provides some counters to the points it makes right? It's somewhat of a self-defeating source. For example:

Here is some evidence from a different source indicating why it isn't as good for elderly:

Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Muller JE. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001

I emphasized already that my points were about smoking the weed and not about eating it in a brownie.

Second, your argument is a double-edged one. You have no conclusive evidence that weed is not as harmful as cigarettes overall.

However, since you gave some nice links already, mainly your last one, I now have evidence without having to search for it myself of how marijuana can affect you WITHOUT you having to smoke it. Very kind of you :yeah:. Further down, you'll find some more evidence of how marijuana can affect you EVEN IF YOU DON'T SMOKE IT. :yes:

This occurs even if you don't smoke it.

This shows that you can develop "amotivational syndrome" WITHOUT smoking. If you do smoke it, you can get that IN ADDITION to respiratory problems.

Once again, does not need to be smoked for this to happen. Marijuana will get into your brain regardless if you eat it or smoke it.

Occurs even if you don't smoke it.

Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal: Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat, e-publication ahead of print, March 12, 2008

yes it does have significance dont filibuster me with your crap, ive never heard of someone being beaten by a stoned person
ive heard of many people including myself being beaten by a drunk person
there are simple things you discover when you go outside and hang around people who do drugs, this is one of them, i don't need a link to some random site this should just be an obvious thing to most, it doesnt take a study to figure this out and if you cant then you need some more experience

"There is a seven-fold difference in the amount of smoke to which
marijuana and tobacco smokers are exposed," he said.

"It's the quantitative difference in smoke exposure that might
explain the difference in the degree of lung injury as assessed
by these physiologic indices."

Moreover, the phagocytes gathered from the lungs of marijuana
smokers do not have the same properties as those gathered from
the lungs of tobacco smokers.

"We have previously shown that the macrophages that are harvested
from the rinse-out of the lungs of marijuana smokers seem not to
be activated," he said. "They do not release toxic oxygen
species, either under basal conditions or under stimulated
conditions nearly to the extent that tobacco macrophages do. If
anything, basal secretion of superoxide seems to be reduced in
the marijuana smokers."

no i did not contradict myself, once again you act as if human nature does not exist, people want the healthiest thing they can smoke period. unless somebodys after a pcp high or coke high there going to buy marijuana they know is 100% safe, its common sense

marijuana has almost the exact same to similiar characteristics of withdrawal as cigarette withdrawal, anxiety, depression, problems sleeping, with cigs, increased appetite, with marijuana less appetite,
you know how i know this? experience, seeing people being addicted and being addicted myself, if im wrong correct me, but you have no personal experience, you are basing your ideas off of links you find off of the internet, which could very well be propaganda
another thing, the peaking of withdrawal generally lasts a week, that means a week of being slightly uncomfortable, maybe less, this does not require rehab, heres the difference between addiction and pussy addiction, addiction:youll suck a dick, do whatever to get your fix, ive met people like this
pussy addiction:you feel like crap for a few months. maybe less, you can function, go to work, maybe not hold a relationship, but boohoo you got yourself into that and in time youll be able to have one again

yes they have marijuana rehab centers, i dont understand this, why dont they have cigarette rehab centers? there practically the same withdrawal except cigs actually have addictive substances in it but because marijuana is illegal it is treated as a serious drug

Tachycardia (an abnormally fast heart-beat), dizziness, anxiety, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, difficulty sleeping and confusion are all possible side effects of cannabis."

i have never seen this happen to anyone out of all the people i have known who smoke it, sounds like propaganda to me, once again, personal experience is needed in order to sort out the bs from the truth

"Marijuana contributes to depression and destroys natural sleep. "

this i agree with and it can happen, the depression im not so sure about, never seen this happen to a light marijuana smoker, only heavy users, but then again, marijuana can make some lazy if smoked constantly, what drug wouldnt, and so there life is going to turn to crap no doubt. thats gunna make them depressed

i really don't doubt any of your findings, except that this marijuana paradox effect only happens to the heaviest of users, its impossible to get addicted to a non addictive substance unless smoked heavily, then there is only mental addiction, which can be solved through therapy, or a few months of sobriety, ive known at least 20 weed addicts in my life, i dont need you to tell me what happens to them, especially me being one of them

ok heres my side of the argument, legalization will bring in tax dollars, this you cant refute, its addictiveness is next to cigarettes except there have been no deaths due to marijuana, dealers wont be able to compete with the guarantee of clean weed at a cheaper price, and be put out of business, why sell extra amounts of weed to compete with the government when you can make money off of another illegal drug, the taboo of marijuana will become less and less as it becomes more commercial, causing it to become a drug on the same level as alcohol except you can see straight on weed and wont have feelings of anger, this just doesn't come with weed, bio fuel, more hemp products, fact is, the increase of people smoking will most likely increase, but it will decrease the amount of kids smoking it, better for a fully developed brain then a teenager me thinks, so, less stupid weedhead teenagers, more tax money, and bio fuel

thedudeman

August 16th, 2009, 09:46 PM

So you guys wouldnt mind if you were on a plane and everyone was high and including the piolits (cant spell this mourning)

horrible argument
dont even need to speak on this, because it would never happen, smells would be detected, drug dogs
the probability of one being drunk on a plane would be more likely because it doesnt release such a strong smell when used

and to the kid above me, my kids wont be able to get high if theres nobody selling weed but a well guarded store, legalization will only make it safer, not more available
why would they wanna get high on something so commercial and uncool thats smoked by adults to? the likeliness of getting drunk and high would become equal, instead of being high more likely

INFERNO

August 16th, 2009, 11:19 PM

ive never heard of someone being beaten by a stoned person
ive heard of many people including myself being beaten by a drunk person

Do you have any objective evidence showing this other than your personal experiences?

there are simple things you discover when you go outside and hang around people who do drugs, this is one of them, i don't need a link to some random site this should just be an obvious thing to most, it doesnt take a study to figure this out and if you cant then you need some more experience

Providing a link to a study has more validity and reliability in a debate than someone's personal undocumented experiences. Also, the links I gave aren't government-sponsored nonsense.

"There is a seven-fold difference in the amount of smoke to which
marijuana and tobacco smokers are exposed," he said.

"It's the quantitative difference in smoke exposure that might
explain the difference in the degree of lung injury as assessed
by these physiologic indices."

Moreover, the phagocytes gathered from the lungs of marijuana
smokers do not have the same properties as those gathered from
the lungs of tobacco smokers.

"We have previously shown that the macrophages that are harvested
from the rinse-out of the lungs of marijuana smokers seem not to
be activated," he said. "They do not release toxic oxygen
species, either under basal conditions or under stimulated
conditions nearly to the extent that tobacco macrophages do. If
anything, basal secretion of superoxide seems to be reduced in
the marijuana smokers."

And what is the point you're trying to make by quoting the article you referenced in your previous post? I pointed out how your article acknowledges that marijuana still can harm your respiratory system in other ways. Conveniently though, you didn't post that part of the article.

no i did not contradict myself, once again you act as if human nature does not exist, people want the healthiest thing they can smoke period. unless somebodys after a pcp high or coke high there going to buy marijuana they know is 100% safe, its common sense

You do recall what you said before about dealers lacing weed and some customers liking that laced weed and so they'd return to the dealer?

marijuana has almost the exact same to similiar characteristics of withdrawal as cigarette withdrawal, anxiety, depression, problems sleeping, with cigs, increased appetite, with marijuana less appetite,
you know how i know this? experience, seeing people being addicted and being addicted myself, if im wrong correct me, but you have no personal experience, you are basing your ideas off of links you find off of the internet, which could very well be propaganda

The links I'm giving are scientific studies. Although, perhaps I'll ask you this, are the links you've given me propaganda also? What makes them not be propaganda yet contain similar information as mine? If mine are likely propaganda then why aren't yours? You have some scientific ones just as I do so explain what makes mine invalid and unreliable and propaganda yet yours are all fine?

I'm basing my ideas not only off of links I've found on the Internet, I'm basing them off my university education. I could post the articles that the university books contain but it's harder for you to look at those so I felt that posting articles we can both access without needing university access would be fair.

I see no reason why my lack of experience should prevent me from debating. Going by your logic, we should scrap all the current scientific experiments and simply have the scientists themselves taking whatever drugs and trial medications then reporting their findings.

I assume though that if someone else were to come along and claim to have more experience with the drugs than you do, then your points have less significance. After all, that's what you're saying to me.

another thing, the peaking of withdrawal generally lasts a week, that means a week of being slightly uncomfortable, maybe less, this does not require rehab, heres the difference between addiction and pussy addiction, addiction:youll suck a dick, do whatever to get your fix, ive met people like this

I never suggested rehab. Although I do admire your terminology, "pussy addiction" :lol:.

yes they have marijuana rehab centers, i dont understand this, why dont they have cigarette rehab centers? there practically the same withdrawal except cigs actually have addictive substances in it but because marijuana is illegal it is treated as a serious drug

They have cigarette rehab centers also. Few people go to them though.

Tachycardia (an abnormally fast heart-beat), dizziness, anxiety, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, difficulty sleeping and confusion are all possible side effects of cannabis."

i have never seen this happen to anyone out of all the people i have known who smoke it, sounds like propaganda to me, once again, personal experience is needed in order to sort out the bs from the truth

Ah, I see, so because none of your people nor you have had those experiences, then it must be false. The links I'm giving aren't government-sponsored, they're independent scientific papers done by experts in this area.

But I wonder, what happens if you see someone get tachycardia as a result. But it's only 1 person out of 100. Do you believe it then or do you still consider it nonsense?

"Marijuana contributes to depression and destroys natural sleep. "

this i agree with and it can happen, the depression im not so sure about, never seen this happen to a light marijuana smoker, only heavy users, but then again, marijuana can make some lazy if smoked constantly, what drug wouldnt, and so there life is going to turn to crap no doubt. thats gunna make them depressed

Not all drugs make you sleepy. But I find it just so funny that you agree with it only if you or someone you know has experienced it. Do you actually trust science? You seem as if you don't unless of course you know someone who had a certain reaction.

i really don't doubt any of your findings, except that this marijuana paradox effect only happens to the heaviest of users, its impossible to get addicted to a non addictive substance unless smoked heavily, then there is only mental addiction, which can be solved through therapy, or a few months of sobriety, ive known at least 20 weed addicts in my life, i dont need you to tell me what happens to them, especially me being one of them

It's not a paradox, the studies you posted (which somehow aren't propaganda) and the ones I posted (which someone may be propaganda) mentioned that they used subjects who smoked quite a lot.

ok heres my side of the argument, legalization will bring in tax dollars, this you cant refute, its addictiveness is next to cigarettes except there have been no deaths due to marijuana, dealers wont be able to compete with the guarantee of clean weed at a cheaper price, and be put out of business, why sell extra amounts of weed to compete with the government when you can make money off of another illegal drug, the taboo of marijuana will become less and less as it becomes more commercial, causing it to become a drug on the same level as alcohol except you can see straight on weed and wont have feelings of anger, this just doesn't come with weed, bio fuel, more hemp products, fact is, the increase of people smoking will most likely increase, but it will decrease the amount of kids smoking it, better for a fully developed brain then a teenager me thinks, so, less stupid weedhead teenagers, more tax money, and bio fuel

How does making marijuana more available decrease the amount of kids smoking it? I'm not understanding this. You acknowledged in a previous post that legalizing it will increase the probability and amount of new addicts yet somehow none or very few of these addicts for some reason won't be kids.

I'll appeal to your likeness of personal experience: alcohol is legally sold yet I've seen (and have been one of them myself) kids under the legal age still drink and there's quite a few kids doing this. How will this be any different for legalizing marijuana?

If it is legalized, there will likely be even more scientific studies (which would not be propaganda but have it your way if you like) to analyze the effects of marijuana. Smoking it is unhealthy, smoking it a lot isn't going to be healthy either. Eating it avoids the respiratory damage but it still isn't damage-free. Long-term use can and does affect one's memory.