|
|
|
|
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:23:52 PM |
Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco 435,000
Alcohol 85,000
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
An Illicit Drug Use, Direct & Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflam. Drugs (Aspirin) 7,600
Marijuana ... 0
Source: drugwarfacts
Word. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:32:06 PM | Read about driving while using pot. Educate yourself.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450
Narcotic
11 a: a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b: a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2: something that soothes, relieves, or lulls
I would include Tobacco under the same defintion.
Source material: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcotic
You're giving me the definition of a narcotic. Where's the evidence that THC is a narcotic? Where's the beef?
Education and learning
There have also been suggestions that cannabis may interfere with a person's capacity to:
concentrate
organise information
use information
This effect seems to last several weeks after use, which can cause particular problems for students.
There have also been suggestions? Whose suggestions. What nonsense. Here's a dose of reality from real worl experiences. I went to night law school with a guy who was stoned all day and all night every day. Of the 225 students who started the 4 year night program, only 12 of us actually graduated. Of those, only 6 of us took and passed the bar exam first time through. Joining us was our pot friend who not only passed the bar first time but passed with one of the highest grades in the state of California. There's an old saying - figures don't lie but liars figure. I'd love to know where these "suggestions" came from. I'm guess they're from the same people who "suggest" that masturbation will make you go blind.
There is no evidence that cannabis causes specific health hazards. But...."
My father used to say that everything after the "but" is bulls**t". Still seems to be the case. NO EVIDENCE OF HEALTH HAZARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that not get your attention?
What about driving?
In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash.
Show me the study. Where's the beef? Where is the author coming up with all this nonsense? I'll bet you think that red light cameras at interesections are a nifty idea too. Did you know that there have been six major studies (four in the U.S., one in Canada and one in Australia) and ALL SIX studies came to the very same conclusion - where red light cameras have been installed at intersections, the accident rates have INCREASED! How about them apples.
Mental health problems
There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past
And that proves exactly WHAT to you? That marijuana causes mental health problems? Good grief. This IS reefer madness part deux and you still don't get it. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:43:58 PM | Here's more. Educate yourself.
SUMMARIES
“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.
To date …, seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.
… The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”
REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.
“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”
REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.
“This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.
REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”
REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.
“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”
REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.
“Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function. … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.”
REFERENCE: UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.
“The evidence suggests that marijuana presents a real, but secondary safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor.”
REFERENCES: D. Gieringer. 1988. Marijuana, driving, and accident safety. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 93-101.
CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES
“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.
There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”
REFERENCE:
Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.
“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.
… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”
REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.
… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”
REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.
ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES
“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.
… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”
REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.
“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”
REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.
TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)
DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES
“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.
In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”
REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:49:18 PM | hard to say, I'd lean to the yes side.... Pot is a gateway drug because it is illegal... a liquor store or tobacco retailer will never push coke or mushrooms on you when they're out of jack daniels or marlboros,lol.
Pot contributes to organized crime because it's illegal... because pot is illegal one healthy full sized well fed pot plant depending on the breed can yield 400-2200$ worth of "buds" at a bulk rate, with a street rate of 1200$-4600$... so that creates lots of oppurtunity for criminal employment.
Pot has medical value.... Contrary to some peoples beliefs pot can be manufactured in a way that will produce consistant product. In pot there is THC then there are cannabinoids, THC breaks down into cannabinoids during the maturing of the flowers, this breakdown is influenced by genetics and environmental stresses... Influencing a pot plants genetics may be more work than corn or something since pot has a male and female sex.
The neighbourhood kids are hanging out in the house next door on saturday night would you rather have them smoking a huge joint or chugging vodka?
why is it perfectly legal to be able to drink something that will get you soo intoxicated you don't even know where you are when you wake up, and you got a pounding head ache because your cerebral fluid is drained? | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:53:31 PM | Amazing...
We throw our kind in prison for wanting to feel good.
We're still in the dark ages, aren't we. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:55:16 PM |
...Cannibas has caused cardiac arrest, it is actually more harmful then 5 tobacco cigerettes. My source is an article in the Wall Street Journal. I will try and find the exact day that appeared. In anecdotal evidence, in a testmonial on the radio program Love Line, the reason the Everlast (of House of Pain fame) had a heart attack, was because of his habitual cannibas us...
Maybe you should have looked at how the study was done and then you would have found this.
Dr. Heath/Tulane Study, 1974.
Brain Damage in Dead Monkey
Heath concluded that Rhesus monkeys, smoking the equivalent of only 30 joints a day, began to atrophy and die after 90 days [that's 2700 joints, or an average of 1.25 doobies per hour 24 hours a day, for 90 days!]
Heath opened the brains of the dead monkeys, counted the dead brain cells, then took control monkeys who hadn't smokes marijuana, killed them, and counted their dead brain cells. The pot smoking monkeys had enormous amounts of dead brain cells as compared to the "straight" monkeys.
The monkeys were strapped into a chair and then strapped into gas masks and given the equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in "five minutes, thru the gas masks" losing no smoke. The monkeys were suffocating!
Now you think that is reliable information because it was in the Times? | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 6:06:38 PM | Why did you quote some of the same sources as the NORML link you provided? I am not intellectually lazy. I am willing to look at all evidence counselor. It will take some time to check the reference material you provided. Thank goodness it is a holiday.
In your own posts THC is called a narcotic. THC is the active ingredient giving the individual the high. Or did you think Iwoudn't read or notice?
I provided a link to my my sources. As far as the New Zeland study if you had followed the link you would have seen the reference material at the bottom of the page.
To the best of my knowledge said link is a part of the home office of England.
I try to find non-baised material to make my points, whilst you seem to use orgaizations with the stated purpose of legalization. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 6:15:41 PM | Very nice find on those studies Bluesman2008, I had not seen those before. I hate to do this to you, because we're on the same side, but I'm gonna have to call you on a couple of points.
Narcotic
11 a: a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b: a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2: something that soothes, relieves, or lulls
I would include Tobacco under the same defintion.
Source material: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcotic
You're giving me the definition of a narcotic. Where's the evidence that THC is a narcotic? Where's the beef?
You can see from where I made emphasis why THC can be considered a narcotic. Basically people used the term wrong for so long that they gave up and changed the definition.
I'll bet you think that red light cameras at interesections are a nifty idea too. Did you know that there have been six major studies (four in the U.S., one in Canada and one in Australia) and ALL SIX studies came to the very same conclusion - where red light cameras have been installed at intersections, the accident rates have INCREASED! How about them apples.
He didn't bring up the red light studies, you did. I think they call that the "strawman" argument. There's no reason to argue against red light cameras, it doesn't help the education and legalization cause. Asking for the study (which you did) is all you can do.
I agree with the rest of it. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 6:17:10 PM | Maybe you should have looked at how the study was done and then you would have found this.
Dr. Heath/Tulane Study, 1974.
Brain Damage in Dead Monkey
Heath concluded that Rhesus monkeys, smoking the equivalent of only 30 joints a day, began to atrophy and die after 90 days [that's 2700 joints, or an average of 1.25 doobies per hour 24 hours a day, for 90 days!]
Heath opened the brains of the dead monkeys, counted the dead brain cells, then took control monkeys who hadn't smokes marijuana, killed them, and counted their dead brain cells. The pot smoking monkeys had enormous amounts of dead brain cells as compared to the "straight" monkeys.
The monkeys were strapped into a chair and then strapped into gas masks and given the equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in "five minutes, thru the gas masks" losing no smoke. The monkeys were suffocating!
Now you think that is reliable information because it was in the Times?
Interesting. I would call that unscientific, and poor research methodology. However the article in the Wall Street Journal was printed sometime in the late 90's or earlier in this decade. That is why I haven't given the exact article. I am still doing a thread search. I am unsure, if they were using an outdated study for their reference material. I have to find the exact article before futher comment.
I think the vodka, and pot arguement is a non starter. However Russians play chess so maybe, vodka wouldn't be such a bad thing  kidding.
My arguement is that it shouldn't be as illegal as it is now, but should be controled, under the supervision of a doctor. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 6:31:21 PM |
My arguement is that it shouldn't be as illegal as it is now, but should be controled, under the supervision of a doctor.
Do you think that alcohol should be treated the same way? If so, I disagree, but can't really argue with you. But if not, then that's pretty hypocritical, don't you think? It's the inconsistency of the laws that bother me most. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 6:36:21 PM |
He didn't bring up the red light studies, you did. I think they call that the "strawman" argument. There's no reason to argue against red light cameras, it doesn't help the education and legalization cause. Asking for the study (which you did) is all you can do.
I didn't bring it up for a strawman argument. I brought it up to prove people should always believe everything they read. When the government wants to keep pot as a scheduled drug they will point to government studies that support their position. But theirs are NOT the only studies in town. | |
|
| |
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 7:00:28 PM | Ironically Alcohol, is more a schedule 1 drug then cannibas is, if you follow strict interpertation of the law.
The difference being Cannabis is currently under DEA scheduling whereas, alcohol is not. Is it not a purdent step to reduce the schedule it is under so scientific research can be conducted so, policy makers can make a more informed decision? This would take a lot of the emotion out of the debate IMHO. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 7:12:47 PM | From the DEA's website, edited (I took out the listed drugs) http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#c
SCHEDULE I
(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opium derivatives, heir salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
SCHEDULE II
(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following substances whether produced directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of vegetable origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis:
(1) Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium or opiate.
(2) Any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of the substances referred to in clause (1), except that these substances shall not include the isoquinoline alkaloids of opium.
(3) Opium poppy and poppy straw.
(4) coca (FOOTNOTE 3) leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers; ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in this paragraph.
(FOOTNOTE 3) So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(SCHEDULE III
(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a stimulant effect on the central nervous system:.
(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a depressant effect on the central nervous system:
(1) Any substance which contains any quantity of a derivative of barbituric acid, or any salt of a derivative of barbituric acid.
(d) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing limited quantities of any of the following narcotic drugs, or any salts thereof:
(1) Not more than 1.8 grams of codeine per 100 milliliters or not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with an equal or greater quantity of an isoquinoline alkaloid of opium.
(2) Not more than 1.8 grams of codeine per 100 milliliters or not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, non-narcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(3) Not more than 300 milligrams of dihydrocodeinone per 100 milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with a fourfold or greater quantity of an isoquinoline alkaloid of opium.
(4) Not more than 300 milligrams of dihydrocodeinone per 100 milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(5) Not more than 1.8 grams of dihydrocodeine per 100 milliliters or not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(6) Not more than 300 milligrams of ethylmorphine per 100 milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(7) Not more than 500 milligrams of opium per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams, or not more than 25 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(8) Not more than 50 milligrams of morphine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(e) Anabolic steroids.
SCHEDULE IV
(1) Barbital.
(2) Chloral betaine.
(3) Chloral hydrate.
(4) Ethchlorvynol.
(5) Ethinamate.
(6) Methohexital.
(7) Meprobamate.
(8) Methylphenobarbital.
(9) Paraldehyde.
(10) Petrichloral.
(11) Phenobarbital.
SCHEDULE V
Any compound, mixture, or preparation containing any of the following limited quantities of narcotic drugs, which shall include one or more nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredients in sufficient proportion to confer upon the compound, mixture, or preparation valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the narcotic drug alone:
Where do you think Cannabis should be on this list? | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 7:25:39 PM | | It shouldn't even BE on that list - not even as a footnote. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/3/2009 7:40:45 PM | | I disagree. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 2:44:46 AM | | hi... I believe that it all should be put back into perspective... the substance is mind altering yet it can be grown in your backyard.. keep it illegal but adjust and clarify the criteria so that the average person has an annoying misdemeanour charge to deal with yet a pusher or large scale grower has severe trafficking charges facing them... our youth should know where society stands on matters of mind altering substances and when the punishment fits the crime the ultimate choice is still up to each individual.... like alcohol, if personal use harms someone else then it bumps up to huge fines and more serious charges... ads and campaigns that teach and talk about substance abuse help society to make more informed decisions... as a parent I teach my teen that mind altering substances do not change her into someone who is more charming or funnier or more social, it certainly will not change her into a better driver.... I teach her to be proud of her natural humour and her outgoing nature and I remind her that in these times she would want to be healthy, clear thinking and wide awake ... blessings, warmly Mona | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 3:52:53 AM |
We're still in the dark ages, aren't we.
Absolutely yes. Because it works. Not much has changed really. We just dress better and drive cars. It's just the illusion of change. It's the illusion of freedom. It's all smoke and mirrors. People don't get it.
keep it illegal but adjust and clarify the criteria so that the average person has an annoying misdemeanour
That's pretty much what it is now. So you're for keeping that way?
our youth should know where society stands on matters of mind altering substances and when the punishment fits the crime the ultimate choice is still up to each individual.... like alcohol,
First, when you say "our youth', who's youth exactly are you talking about? Roughly half of the US population today believes pot should be decriminalized and at least that percentage has at one time or currently smokes it. So you're not speaking for the group - only yours.
Where does the portion of society that YOU claim to speak for stand on alcholic use and/or possession in schools? Don't you see that one is socially sanctioned and one is not.
But pot has nothing to do with alcohol in terms of it's effects. But why should it be any different. Why should not possession of a 12oz can of beer be a misdemeanor? Tell me why RATIONALLY. Go ahead. Convince me.
as a parent I teach my teen that mind altering substances do not change her into someone who is more charming or funnier or more social
How do you know that? Have YOU ever smoked pot? Only a pot smoker could know. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 4:39:15 AM | Yes.
But making it legal likely won't be the panacea that weed smokers think it will be.
It will likely be as regulated as alcohol and most employers will probably still be able to regulate its use or abuse by employees.
Like alcohol. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 6:48:58 AM | All recreational drugs should be legal. Any sale of recreational drugs for profit, or to provide them to a minor, should be illegal. This would include alcohol, tobacco...etc.
While pot has ruin many relationships, jobs, and lives it remains an integral part of being a free human being to make choices and decisions. Exploring one's consciousness through the use of various plants and chemicals I believe is a legitimate choice and should not be illegal.
*edit It wasn't the pot that ruined the relationships, jobs, and lives, it was an addictive urge, that could have just as easily manifested through other means.
I work as a counselor at a drug treatment facility, while pot is the least physically damaging it can be highly addictive for some. It is especially disrecomended for people with a history of sctizophrenia and related symptoms. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 6:51:27 AM | There only seems to be one person here deluded enough to believe pot is evil]nd should be illegal
First I never said the Cannabis is evil. I am trying to point out it potentials harmful effects of long term use. The glacoma quote, was not my own but within English study.
This would be true for drugs and long-term use/abuse. I can think of jaunice, or scirrhous of the liver, due to alcohol abuse.
I am for the supervision of Cannabis use, under the care of a medical professional. I am against the recereational use.
While pot has ruin many relationships, jobs, and lives it remains an integral part of being a free human being to make choices and decisions.
That sir is the defintion, of addiction.
Happy Independence Day. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:40:59 AM | | I too think it will happen. Too many people outside the typical "stoner" circles use the drug responsibly. The fight against legalization is powered by the police's use of the drug as a lever. They bust a kid with dope and they use that to leverage information from him regarding truly worse things... I suspect this lobby will be loathe to give up such a tool... | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:50:40 AM | For fun I thought I would calculate the DEA cost for each kg of drugs they take off the street.
Figures from: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/statistics.html#arrests
Cocaine--------------------- 49,823.3kg
Heroin----------------------598.6kg
Methamphetamine-------1,540.4kg
Hallucinogens-------------46kg (based on 5mg doses)
Marijuana------------------660,969.2kg
Total Drug Seizures------712,977.5kg
DEA Yearly Budget------$2,345,900,000
This means the DEA spends $3,290.29 for every kg of "drugs" they take off the street.
But what if marijuana was made legal, and the DEA continued with the same budget, and same non-marijuana busts.
They would then be spending $45,106.26 for every kg they take off the street. At this point, the DEA would probably be more effective just buying the drugs off the street.
No matter what the science says, the DEA will always fight to keep marijuana illegal, because that is where they get their funding from. They could not ask for $2.346 billion if they were only pulling in 52,008kg of drugs. They need the easy 660,969kg of weed to pad their budget. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:49:15 AM | | Interesting. You make a good point. I still don't think it should be over the counter. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/4/2009 2:12:24 PM |
Pot was outlawed in the US under the marijuana stamp act of 1937 (later thrown out by Tim Leary's case) The law was passed in the midst of the depression during a time when the use of marijuana was considered the province of hispanics and black jazz players. ......
I always thought it was outlawed because it represented a real threat to the cotton industry....maybe that's just a conspiracy theory, but I've read a lot indicating that was the case.
As far as I'm concerned, I think it should be legal, at least as long as alcohol is. I don't see a big difference between the two. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
