1) are you for or against this passing
For
2) why
I believe that substances that alter or enhance consiousness are an important and key component to bettering human beings as a race and allowing them to empathize and relate to one another in a more humane and peaceful manner.
Which means I'm also for legalizing most psychotropics/entheogens
such as DMT, Mushrooms, and LSD in particular: http://www.mayanmajix.com/art1699.html, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015
3) if it passes would you like to see other states adopt this measure.
Yes
When you have drugs prescribed by a doctor the pharmacist goes over all the potential dangers and risks and the container the drugs come in have directions for use--I don't see why something similar cant be put in place for the drugs that are currently illegal.
If an adult wants to drop acid, smoke pot, take ecstasy, etc. it isn't the government or anyone else's job to tell them they cant. However, they should be provided with all the scientific data (that which isnt skewed by hysteria or politics) that tells them what they can expect to experience at specific dosages.
As more cases of this become aware, those laws are going to be changed to a more reasonable level.Sadly, I lack your gumdrops-and-lollipops view of law enforcement trends.
P.S. Why do you spell the word as "industrical?" Is that a pun I'm missing?
Weird, I could have sworn I cut and pasted it right from your post. I'm not sure why it came out that way. Maybe I did type it and just switched thoughts midstream and then cut and pasted my own weird writing. Strange. Guess, that is why one should spellcheck, but I'm entire too lazy for that.
As for "gumdrops-and-lollipops", I would just say that from what I've seen and read, the history of the US is filled with situations where government strong arms things only to have a new generation push back farther the other way.
|
I should probably stay away from this thread...
One of the major differences between say pot and alcohol is potency. Next time you're out drinking with your buddies, pass around one beer between the lot of you and see how smashed everyone gets.
There are health benefits to drinking some alcohol. The benefits of smoking weed are dubious at best.
I know people who smoke cigarettes. I know people who smoke pot. There is a difference.
The article talks about "recreational use". Regardless of people's opinions on it, it is a mind-altering substance. Hydrocodone (sp?) is still a prescription drug. Even by making this (pot) "over the counter", what kind of "can of worms" does this then open up? I mean "recreational use" makes it sound like it should be governed as much as cigarettes. Why then should any prescription medicine not be considered "recreational"? (I don't really mean that other than some of the more powerful pain medications. I understand that most prescription medication is used to treat a very specific issue.)
The biggest problem that I have with the whole thing isn't the drug in question, but more where this will lead to next. We seem to keep redrawing the line as to what is ok, right, or acceptable. After this gets passed, what will the next thing be where we start saying "well, pot is legal. Why can't XXXXXX be?" At what point will the next thing be wrong?
For me it all boils down to personal freedom. I dont think any drug should be illegal.
except angeldust, that $#!*s crazy!
...
and PCP, thats crazy too!
The biggest problem that I have with the whole thing isn't the drug in question, but more where this will lead to next. We seem to keep redrawing the line as to what is ok, right, or acceptable. After this gets passed, what will the next thing be where we start saying "well, pot is legal. Why can't XXXXXX be?" At what point will the next thing be wrong?
I guess the question is, then, is there a better yardstick than tradition? The argument "don't redraw lines or we'll never stop" implies that there can be no empirical method for determining what is "OK," so we might as well throw in the towel and not worry about it. Personally, I feel that a better standard in this case would involve some sort of cost-benefits of the health risks and loss of time from "stoning" vs. the health risks and loss of productive time due to prison sentences for the same.
In other words, use of standards of judgment other than tradition does not in any way imply that we must abandon all standards of judgment whatsoever.
|
|
In other words, use of standards of judgment other than tradition does not in any way imply that we must abandon all standards of judgment whatsoever.
And I didn't mean to imply that. A lot of the argument for it seems to end up saying "because I want it". They're just tacking on other "benefits" to try and get what they want. And if that's how we are to determine what should be legal and what shouldn't -- then I have a problem with that. Legalizing marijuana may solve a couple of problems, but I'm guessing that the people who REALLY want it legalized aren't really thinking about the possible problems legalization will create.
|
|
I guess the question is, then, is there a better yardstick than tradition? The argument "don't redraw lines or we'll never stop" implies that there can be no empirical method for determining what is "OK," so we might as well throw in the towel and not worry about it. Personally, I feel that a better standard in this case would involve some sort of cost-benefits of the health risks and loss of time from "stoning" vs. the health risks and loss of productive time due to prison sentences for the same.
I was going to edit my other response and felt that I should just try again.
Most of the arguments (all?) for legalization that have been mentioned here seem to revolve around the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal and therefore so should pot as if they are the same thing. Which really feels a lot to me like people whining. The "standard" that you proposed -- or even something similar -- I would encourage. Unfortunately I hear things like "it's not as bad as XXXXX" (which is a really bad argument -- you can pretty much always come up with something worse) or "people are doing it anyway" (which again is a pretty poor argument -- so anything that anyone is doing should be legal?) or trying to do a loose comparison to something currently legal "broccoli is legal and 'natural' and marijuana is 'natural' so it's basically the same thing and should therefore be legal".
I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't see a good reason to legalize it.
|
To answer the OP:
1) For it 100%
2) Multiple reasons. First, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal substances.
Second, legalizing and taxing a product that is going to be used by a portion of the population anyway makes perfect fiscal sense, as would requiring a permit to grow in the 25 square foot area for personal use. As of 2008, 102 MILLION of the folks in the US had tried marijuana at some point, with 15.2 MILLION folks having used it in the past month. This can tally up to a significant revenue stream as far as taxes go, not to mention the revenue on the producer/merchant end of the transaction.
Third, marijuana yields material beyond the intoxicating aspect of the plant. The seeds can be utilized for oil (my mother's family utilized it for this in Latvia before they made their way to the US). The fibers from the plant can be used for production of cloth and paper (which has a longer period of viability than pulp based, especially acid treated pulp based paper). All in all more varied in commercial application than tobacco or alcohol production. Additionally, what growers would consider waste (stem and stalk) could potentially be utilized to generate a secondary source for ethanol production. With the fast growth rate and high biomass ratio, this could be significant.
Fourth, it will free up law enforcement to focus on serious problems rather than trying to nab the stoner with a bad of weed.
3) Yes, I would.
I have smoked pot, and did so heavily for many years, working full time throughout and getting my degree in Biology/Anthropology. I also know a good number of folks who smoke regularly and who are productive members of society, ranging from mechanics, engineers, computer programmers, artists and your average 9-to-5 working stiff. Smoking pot does not mean you are going to be a slacker. It just the slackers who smoke that lead to the stereotype ... you never hear about the straight-laced slacker being a drain on society leading to an argument that being completely drug free is a bad thing.
Additionally, as to the concerns for the Humbolt growers, I have to say y'all have skills (having sampled wares from your area years ago). Legalization should not cause a reduction in revenue if the marketing spin is put into place effectively. You already have name recognition across the US (I'm in NC and heard about Humbolt green in the early 80's), so getting a successful higher end product to market if legalization goes through would be as close to a gimme as you can get. It really would require a gathering of growers pulling together and incorporating as a single business entity to come off without a hitch.
But all this is just my 2cp, take it as you will.
EDIT: One thing I forgot to state is this. I agree completely with folks who want it set to a similar standard as alcohol (i.e. - you must be 21 or older to purchase and/or consume). This makes sense to me as it falls in to an established guideline already in place as well as make sure those who should be old enough to research what they put into their bodies are the ones who have the option to do so.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the personal freedom argument has a lot of merit to it and doesn't depend on saying it's not worse than XXX. You're allowed to think what you want, worship what you want, pierce yourself, get tatoos, eat only beef, pop your zits, scratch your ass, pick your nose, etc. What you do with your body is one of the most important liberties, and that extends to your mind as well. Barring some sort of external harm to others, I don't think the state has any right to interfere in those decisions.
One of the major differences between say pot and alcohol is potency. Next time you're out drinking with your buddies, pass around one beer between the lot of you and see how smashed everyone gets.
Yeah, and that’s why no one passes around one beer at a party. People drink alcohol for its mind altering effects, therefore they are going to keep drinking at a party until they get to that mind altered state. Personally I think it’s a point for the side of legalization of weed that you can pass around a single joint around a party to have the same effect as everyone at the party taking in half their day’s recommended calories in fermented sugar.
** spoiler omitted **...
While many of my views would put me on the "left," I personally despise such a partisan and categorized way of thinking. Regardless of my specific views I like to regard myself as being outside the political spectrum. I personally do not agree with gun control, not one bit. If you wanna own an RPG, go ahead and do so. In fact it's gun control that was the issue that broke me of slavishly following the "left" back in high school.
If you wanna own an RPG, go ahead and do so. In fact it's gun control that was the issue that broke me of slavishly following the "left" back in high school.
What do role playing games have to do with gun control? Is this a d20 modern discussion? I'm lost.
I am 100% for legalization, for all states and at the federal level.
It just seems pointless to make it illegal. Criminalization of it does more harm than using it ever would.
Taxing it would not be a bad thing either.
I don't think it should be legal in public spaces though - just like tobacco - if you want to smoke, fine, but keep the stench to yourself. It's not reasonable for an air traffic controller to get stoned on his way to work just because he took the bus. I also don't think it's reasonable for someone to have to breathe smoke just because you needed a fix (of nicotine or whatever).
Personally, I sometimes think that all drugs (even meth and such) should be legal, but that crimes committed while under the influence should have vastly stiffer penalties.
On the other hand, some things, like meth addiction, are so destructive to a person and the people around them that punishment after the fact would be useless, and crime prevention is a much better strategy.
I guess I think that the really addictive drugs that really mess you up should remain illegal, but things like pot, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc. should be legal, with appropriate penalties if you manage to do something harmful to someone else.
I'm against, and am also at the extreme other end of this; I'd wish that tobacco would be outlawed.
|
I'm against, and am also at the extreme other end of this; I'd wish that tobacco would be outlawed.
So pot = bad, nicotine = bad, alcohol = ok? both alcohol and nicotine are addictive, if you want to make one illegal it stands to reason that the other should be illegal as well. Pot doesn't hurt anybody, the "statistics" regarding drain on companies' resources and increased workman's comp claims are ridiculous considering pot stays in your system for anywhere from 1 day to 1 month.
Honestly the only problem I would have with legalization of pot is the lack of a reliable method of testing that can reveal intoxication rather than the current methods which only prove recent use. Field sobriety tests are not accurate enough to obtain a conviction with, and to my knowledge a test to determine sobriety (or lack thereof) through scientific methods does not exist.
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
Sure, it's a "Gateway" drug...specifically *because* it's illegal. Likewise the "it sends money to criminals" argument. Framkly, there simply aren't any cogent arguments against decriminalization. Which means it probably won't happen...
+1
I wasn't trying to spark anything, just stating where I stand on the matter.
|
|
I wasn't trying to spark anything, just stating where I stand on the matter.
I'm just curious as to the "why" of your opinion. Do you just have something against inhaled substances? Would you be OK with pot being legalized as long as you had to consume it, a la alcohol? Inquiring mind(s) want(s) to know!
The stuff is never going to be legalized in the U.S., because the War on Drugs exists not to promote public safety, but to support the massive prison-industrial complex. Over time, more and more things become illegal, the penalties get stricter, and the percentage of adults in prison continues to increase. This is a MAJOR economic driving force that isn't going to go away, and it's not something that the Powers That Be are going to voluntarily interfere with.
The legal status of pot has nothing -- repeat, ZERO -- to do with its relative health effects or lack thereof.
Not to say you don't have a point, but every time I hear the phrase "________-industrial complex," I can't help but picture some stoned dude with long hair going "It's a conspiracy, man!" ;-)
I resemble that remark!;)
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
Its likely they had alcohol as well so are we going to argue that we need to ban beer because its a gateway drug?
Cigarettes and coffee are stimulants as is crystal meth and cocaine. Hence it strikes me that if we are worried about gateway drugs we should be outlawing latte's because they lead to crystal meth abuse.
I already responded to that.
It doesn't matter what California does about marijuana, it's Federal Schedule I drug. You can't even make it legal with "prescriptions".
This is true, but consider the following:
1. The current administration is not enforcing federal drug laws in California with respect to medical marijuana dispensaries and their suppliers.
2. A Corporation cannot legally sell, distribute or manufacture Schedule I drugs.
3. Various international treaties prevent foreign countries from allowing corporations to operate within their boarders if the corporation sells, distributes or manufactures Schedule I drugs (or whatever the banned list is in that country.)
What this amounts to is local decriminalization within California, should it pass with no or minimal fed enforcement, as long as distribution and cultivation is local to California. No corporation will be able to get near it, at least until it is dropped from Schedule I by the Fed, as it would be a major barrier to trade.
Some in California is counting on this, as it creates an instant cottage / niche tourism industry within their State, which might bring in much needed out of state revenue.
|
|
Yeah, and that’s why no one passes around one beer at a party. People drink alcohol for its mind altering effects, therefore they are going to keep drinking at a party until they get to that mind altered state. Personally I think it’s a point for the side of legalization of weed that you can pass around a single joint around a party to have the same effect as everyone at the party taking in half their day’s recommended calories in fermented sugar.
One of the major differences between say pot and alcohol is potency. Next time you're out drinking with your buddies, pass around one beer between the lot of you and see how smashed everyone gets.
My point is that people can and often do drink to socialize or simply drink because they like the taste. I think it's rather difficult to smoke a joint without getting high.
|
|
I think the personal freedom argument has a lot of merit to it and doesn't depend on saying it's not worse than XXX. You're allowed to think what you want, worship what you want, pierce yourself, get tatoos, eat only beef, pop your zits, scratch your ass, pick your nose, etc. What you do with your body is one of the most important liberties, and that extends to your mind as well. Barring some sort of external harm to others, I don't think the state has any right to interfere in those decisions.
I understand your point. And largely agree with it. However, can't that argument be used for nearly anything? Why can't we have "recreational use" hydrocodone? Morphine? or any other drug? "I'm only doing it to myself." It's the "barring ... external harm to others..." that would really be difficult to police. Are cigarettes not harmful? Aren't they illegal in most states to be purchased by minors? Yet drive by any high school in America and you will find a group of kids -- clearly under 18 -- smoking just off the school grounds. So they were clearly given their first cigarette by someone who had their improved health in mind. Not only that, but they are continuing to be given these cigarettes by someone who clearly doesn't want "external harm to others".
I don't know what the answer is. I think that you have a valid point. But I also feel that a good answer requires more than "it's my body and I can do what I want to it."
|
|
Some in California is counting on this, as it creates an instant cottage / niche tourism industry within their State, which might bring in much needed out of state revenue.
I can totally see this. Fireworks are illegal in Illinois but not in Wisconsin. Just over the border into Wisconsin are all these stands selling fireworks. I have a feeling that most of their customers were not natives of Wisconsin.
|
|
It doesn't matter what California does about marijuana, it's Federal Schedule I drug. You can't even make it legal with "prescriptions".
This is true, but consider the following:
1. The current administration is not enforcing federal drug laws in California with respect to medical marijuana dispensaries and their suppliers.
2. A Corporation cannot legally sell, distribute or manufacture Schedule I drugs.
3. Various international treaties prevent foreign countries from allowing corporations to operate within their boarders if the corporation sells, distributes or manufactures Schedule I drugs (or whatever the banned list is in that country.)
What this amounts to is local decriminalization within California, should it pass with no or minimal fed enforcement, as long as distribution and cultivation is local to California. No corporation will be able to get near it, at least until it is dropped from Schedule I by the Fed, as it would be a major barrier to trade.
Some in California is counting on this, as it creates an instant cottage / niche tourism industry within their State, which might bring in much needed out of state revenue.
I wasn't stating opinion, just fact. My only point was that marijuana is Federally illegal. True? Yes. And that's all I was saying :)
I wasn't stating opinion, just fact. My only point was that marijuana is Federally illegal. True? Yes. And that's all I was saying :)It doesn't matter what California does about marijuana, it's Federal Schedule I drug. You can't even make it legal with "prescriptions".
This is true, but consider the following:
1. The current administration is not enforcing federal drug laws in California with respect to medical marijuana dispensaries and their suppliers.
2. A Corporation cannot legally sell, distribute or manufacture Schedule I drugs.
3. Various international treaties prevent foreign countries from allowing corporations to operate within their boarders if the corporation sells, distributes or manufactures Schedule I drugs (or whatever the banned list is in that country.)
What this amounts to is local decriminalization within California, should it pass with no or minimal fed enforcement, as long as distribution and cultivation is local to California. No corporation will be able to get near it, at least until it is dropped from Schedule I by the Fed, as it would be a major barrier to trade.
Some in California is counting on this, as it creates an instant cottage / niche tourism industry within their State, which might bring in much needed out of state revenue.
It will be an issue when the Feds want something extra to charge a dope user/seller/grower. Remember, they didn't get Copone for murder or anything like that.
All this proves is that Western Civilisation is in it's death throes.
My point is that people can and often do drink to socialize or simply drink because they like the taste. I think it's rather difficult to smoke a joint without getting high.
Wow, they drink JUST to socialize or because they like the taste? You mean alcohol buzz isn't a social lubricant? Wow. You mean I'm not allowed to make the same argument about weed? (ok I know you don't mean that but that's how you're spinning it)
Anyway, you've posted a lot of other guff, too, but I'm going to take one point here and reply.
One needs to understand that alcohol and marijuana intoxication are not the same. One needs to understand that marijuana intoxication and marijuana intoxication are not the same. How much did you smoke? What did you smoke? Was it a nerd of hash? A toke? A whole reefer? A bong hit? Was it Vancouver Hydro, farmer Bob's corn field special, or coma-pot? I can tell you for a fact that sharing a reefer at a party does not incapacitate someone unless they are a weed virgin, and even then they are functional, if perhaps somewhat giggly.
I've smoked a lot of reefer in my days, and I've read your posts, and I can see (whether or not you've tried it) that you know next to nothing about marijuana intoxication.
Yet you feel the need to make pronouncements about marijuana intoxication like the one I see above... why? If I knew nothing or next to nothing about alcohol intoxication should I be the judge of alcohol use?
To take this further, do we want laws about alcohol intoxication made by people who diddly squat about boozing?
Moff, I love you, but until you get this first part of the issue straight, there's not much more to say, and for certain no pot aficionado is ever going to take your appeals seriously.
Also, this would be going way different if Jesus had turned bread into reefer instead of water into wine....
|
|
First, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal substances.
Just curious here -- How do you define "dangerous"?
I'm not going to look it up right now, but I know that having a glass of wine at dinner time is actually healthy -- antioxidants and actually has a good effect on the liver. Overdose of anything can probably be "bad", so I'm not sure that using "drunkeness" as a way to define "more dangerous" is valid. That has more to do with self control and personal abuse -- which I'm sure that abuse wouldn't happen with pot.
As for tobacco, this was taken off of the NIDA website.
Effects on the Heart
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20–100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. 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.
Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
So I'm not sure how this is less dangerous -- unless we are talking about dangerous to others. In which case I guess that "neglect" is less dangerous than "abuse".
I wasn't stating opinion, just fact. My only point was that marijuana is Federally illegal. True? Yes. And that's all I was saying :)
Understood and agreed, just pointing out how that fact might work to some folks advantage.
|
|
...I can see (whether or not you've tried it) that you know next to nothing about marijuana intoxication...
Possibly. I haven't ever and have no desire to smoke pot. I see no reason to it. I also don't see any reason to smoke cigarettes either. I don't have a problem having an occasional drink -- but I do have a problem with people drinking with the sole purpose of getting drunk.
My experience with marijuana is with my brother. And that shouldn't happen to anyone. So maybe my experience is jaded, but if it should be legalized, I'd really like to see more of a reason than "because I want it".
|
|
Moff, I love you, but until you get this first part of the issue straight, there's not much more to say, and for certain no pot aficionado is ever going to take your appeals seriously.
One more thing -- I love you too.
Seriously though, as I said before, I'm not necessarily against legalization. I still won't smoke it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that I need to. I just want people who do want it legalized to think about it more than "I want it". I've actually seen a few arguments here for it that have made me think -- but very few.
|
|
...I can see (whether or not you've tried it) that you know next to nothing about marijuana intoxication...Possibly. I haven't ever and have no desire to smoke pot. I see no reason to it. I also don't see any reason to smoke cigarettes either. I don't have a problem having an occasional drink -- but I do have a problem with people drinking with the sole purpose of getting drunk.
My experience with marijuana is with my brother. And that shouldn't happen to anyone. So maybe my experience is jaded, but if it should be legalized, I'd really like to see more of a reason than "because I want it".
I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.
First, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal substances.Just curious here -- How do you define "dangerous"?
I'm not going to look it up right now, but I know that having a glass of wine at dinner time is actually healthy -- antioxidants and actually has a good effect on the liver. Overdose of anything can probably be "bad", so I'm not sure that using "drunkeness" as a way to define "more dangerous" is valid. That has more to do with self control and personal abuse -- which I'm sure that abuse wouldn't happen with pot.
As for tobacco, this was taken off of the NIDA website.
...Effects on the Heart
...
Effects on the Lungs
...
Effect on the heart. How much were they given? What is the distribution of this 20% to 100%? Does anyone realize that going up the stairs increases your heart rate? I increase mine by over 100% twice a day--I am a bike commuter in a mountainous area. My doctor would probably discourage this if I was old and had a weak heart.
Effect on the lungs? Have you ever heard of this? My brother uses it, and by disintegrating some weed in it can control an asthma attack. No harmful smoke inhalants. And besides, what if I want to ingest it? Pot brownies. Yum, yum. If I get injured in a car accident and that injury can be prevented by a seatbelt, do we blame the road?
And by the way, that wine you have with dinner IS killing brain cells, and YES if I want to prove that alcohol is dangerous, it's easy to do. Especially if I want to go after that frightful social costs. But I just can't get myself to disrespect you with the cherry picked tripe you're throwing at pot smokers.
Meanwhile, in my imagination:
The equation of being high with getting wasted reminds me of the WKRP episode where Johnny Fever and Venus Flytrap go head to head in a blood alcohol/reflex test, where Johnny gets faster the more he drinks, and also a few guys I know who drive better when they ARE high.
...
For my part I haven't smoked dope for 9 years. I might eat a hash brownie if someone offered, though. I don't drink either. Nor do I smoke cigarettes.
I don't know... I guess I might take a bong hit while fishing again....
|
|
I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.
I'm not sure what your point is. If you had a line up with myself and my two brothers and were asked to pick out the person who smokes pot, I'm fairly confident that you'd be able to do it. I would probably have less of an issue with it if it was just addictive.
|
|
All this proves is that Western Civilisation is in it's death throes.
That we're debating this, or that some people think legalizing drugs isn't a bad idea?
If it is the second part, I'd have to say that the less than 100 years that drugs, for the most part, have been illegal haven't exactly been a shining example of "civilized" behavior. I think the ridiculous ideological wars we've waged since 1900, and the polarizing politics of extremism, both left and right(the "anti-age of reason" afaic), have damaged Western civilization more than anyone doing blow off a hooker's ass.
Alcohol prohibition directly created domestic organized crime as we know it, the so-called "War on Drugs" launched in the early '70s did the same for international cartels. Furthermore, the "reasoning" and propaganda behind the push to outlaw cocaine and heroin (1910s) and marijuana (1938) were uniformly racist and concealed a commercial ulterior motive. In the case of marijuana, prohibition proponents went as far as to reject and rewrite the sitting Surgeon General's findings that marijuana was relatively harmless before pressing Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.
Can drugs negatively impact people's lives? Absolutely. As can booze, sex and Twinkies. Do drugs negatively impact most people's lives who try or use them? Not really, not any more than booze, sex and Twinkies.
But there will always be people who look at the one person who loses everything to cocaine and ignores the hundreds of people who use it to little ill effect. That is the nature of self-righteousness, self delusion and misinformation.
Oh well.
|
|
I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.I'm not sure what your point is. If you had a line up with myself and my two brothers and were asked to pick out the person who smokes pot, I'm fairly confident that you'd be able to do it. I would probably have less of an issue with it if it was just addictive.
All things in moderation...there are plenty of people who lead normal, productive lives and smoke pot daily...just like there are people who lead normal, productive lives and drink alcohol on a daily basis. While I'm sure the situation with your brother is unfortunate, that is poor willpower on his part, not weed. That may sound harsh, but it's true...
|
|
...Effects on the Heart
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20–100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. 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.
Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
Nonetheless, marijuana
Moff, my only problem with this is you're quoting a source who's funding comes from a body that has a heavy interest in keeping drugs illegal. Prisons and enforcement are a multi-BILLION dollar industry (why do you you think the Home of the "Free" has the largest prison population, per capita, of pretty much anywhere?
NIDA has little incentive to publish anything that runs contrary to the gravy train's propaganda. Remember this, marijuana wasn't made illegal because of any health risk (see my post above) it was made illegal for economic purposes, and the propaganda to get Congress to act was the myth of roving bands of blacks and Hispanics high on reefer and raping white women. Pretty much the exact argument used thirty years prior to outlaw cocaine and heroin.
*shrug*
Moff, I love you, but until you get this first part of the issue straight, there's not much more to say, and for certain no pot aficionado is ever going to take your appeals seriously.One more thing -- I love you too.
Seriously though, as I said before, I'm not necessarily against legalization. I still won't smoke it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that I need to. I just want people who do want it legalized to think about it more than "I want it". I've actually seen a few arguments here for it that have made me think -- but very few.
I'm not saying it's the basis of your argument, but I must point out that, "I own by body.", and, "I want to do it.", are entirely separate arguments.
I have no interest in doing pot, coke, heroin, or meth, but I am convinced that we own ourselves, and we can do things with our own bodies that others find odious.
I think Jefferson's quote about religion is relevant to this topic.
..."It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The freedom to do what the majority approves of means little if anything. The freedom to do what the majority finds objectionable when it harms no one else is what the government is really for.
I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.I'm not sure what your point is. If you had a line up with myself and my two brothers and were asked to pick out the person who smokes pot, I'm fairly confident that you'd be able to do it. I would probably have less of an issue with it if it was just addictive.
Believe me, I get the point.
Your having established the import you put on judging people by appearance, I'm going to guess that you have already decided that weed should be illegal and that you are now going about furnishing arguments to support you views. Has it ever occurred to you that this is not a good way of coming to a decision about important social matters?
I'm seriously stunned.
You allow I'm sure the ongoing existence of McDonald's food in your country, despite clear evidence that abuse of their food is part of a health epidemic that is bending over your country's health care system and is CERTAINLY a far greater cause of heart attack than smoking a doob. While_at_the_same_time you support legislation that (as Derek has cogently pointed out) is trumped up and has created criminal organizations of global scale and resources.
Dude, they want to smoke flowers. Controlled substance, sure, but f~$~ing up people after a little mellow with criminal records and jail time...? What gives?
All things in moderation...there are plenty of people who lead normal, productive lives and smoke pot daily...just like there are people who lead normal, productive lives and drink alcohol on a daily basis. While I'm sure the situation with your brother is unfortunate, that is poor willpower on his part, not weed. That may sound harsh, but it's true...I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.I'm not sure what your point is. If you had a line up with myself and my two brothers and were asked to pick out the person who smokes pot, I'm fairly confident that you'd be able to do it. I would probably have less of an issue with it if it was just addictive.
It's kind of like the dirty little secret that thousands of people use heroin, coke, and meth, and they excel at their day jobs. Most dealers i have known consider what most folks would consider good workers their best customers as opposed to the strung out addict. Even addicts can be high functioning. I wonder if people might see this issue differently if they knew what everyone they worked with did in their off time.
Regardless the question remains, "Do we own our selves, or don't we?"