| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 1:37:24 AM | All the more reason to keep it illegal. Many, if not all the prisons in the US are run as for-profit corporations that rely on being stuffed to capacity to make their money. I think you might find that at least one of the lobbys for keeping weed illegal will turn out to be the prisons themselves.
It's always the same. Follow the money. Who profits the most from keeping pot illegal? Migod that's a who's who list of bad guys. Of course they want it illegal. The underground market is far more profitable to them if it stays illegal. To the list of moral scum who profit from pot's illegality can be added the "moralists" who, having no personal experience with pot whatsoever, simply can't tolerate the fact that other people can simply have a lot of harmless fun with it. That makes them crazy because they can't unclench long enough to have some fun in their lives unless they're falling down drunk or spaced out on prescription meds. Those hypocrites really make me ill. Bottom line - there is absolutely no good reason to keep pot illegal any more. It's time for this society to grow up. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 2:22:30 AM | | I don't smoke but no doubt in my mind it should be legal. In college, in a brain and body class, I was amazed to see how much worse alcohol is on the human body than marijuana. People don't get into marijuana and driving accidents, or start punching people because he smoked too many bowls. It's more or less benign. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 7:41:21 AM | BWAHAHHHHA people don't have accidents or fight while high?
Thats like alcoholics saying.. "well beer doesnt end up with gang shootings " | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 8:00:22 AM |
I guess we should outlaw hamburgers.
I have a better idea; why don't we outlaw lawyers & legislators? That way we won't have to put up with stupid "laws."  | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 1:22:35 PM | Not many people in this thread have anything constructive to say, as most of you are too wrapped up in your own biases to accept that there might be a little bit of truth to both sides(gee, that's never been the case with controversial subjects, has it?)
I find myself in the middle as my libertarian, anti-collectivist persuasion leads me to believe that all drugs should be legalized, while I can no longer buy into the foolhardy "pot can do no wrong" mentality that characterized my using days. On the one hand, I think that a lot of the anti-drug propaganda is so off base that it is pointless to spend money on it, yet I also know first hand that pot can certainly mess up people's lives(such as my own). I always thought the best anti-pot propaganda message on TV was the one where the guy is sitting on a couch, talking about how he didn't go out and drive, or fight, or do anything at all, as this message strikes me as the closest to an accurate idea why using may not be a great idea.
Pot has the potential to mess up your life if you let it, and anyone trying to make the harmless argument is just as much a fool as the ones claiming that is will make you psychotic and willing to dive out the window. I fully support the idea of legalizing drugs and only punishing people for their behaviors while on the drugs(eg DUI), but let's at least be honest enough to admit that there are consequences to using any drug. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 2:05:52 PM |
Anything can be harmful if used in excess
I once got addicted to chocolate milkshakes and gained 30 pounds in three months.
I later got addicted to cheesecake...same thing (this time in two months).
Many years before, I used weed too often and couldn't think as sharply for about three days after smoking it.
Of the three, the weed was the easiest "addiction" to quit and didn't entail months of dieting & exercise to get myself back to normal.
Based on my own experience, both cheesecake and chocolate milkshakes are more addicting and more damaging than weed. Obviously they should have been outlawed long before weed!
I'm currently drinking a lot of beer...but I'm not addicted; it's just that I can't stop drinking it!...  | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/16/2009 2:17:44 PM | No offense, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about, which is somewhat sad considering that we're on the net. THC absolutely has an LD50, just like any other substance, the fact that it is very high does not negate its existence-there are certainly people with access to enough THC by mass to possess a lethal dose.
Also most of the negative effects claimed are ridiculous and extreme. Pot is not physically addictive which means that the types of people who become dependent on it could just as easily become dependent on food or any number of other non-addictive substances.
How very rich, to follow a statement about ridiculous and extreme statements, with a ridiculous and extreme statement. The notion that THC is incapable of causing physical dependency went out of vogue in the '80s, when research(scientific, not you asking your stoner buddies their anecdotal evidence) showed a significant degree of physical withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of marijuana use in chronic users, so you might want to go ahead and do a lit. search and get up to date. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov has access to PubMedCentral and it's extensive body of research, check it out.
There are valid reasons for it to be illegal(pretty much the same ones as for alcohol), I just think that the arguments in favor of legalization are much more persuasive(much like alcohol). Take off the pothead goggles for a minute and you'll see that. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/17/2009 1:23:15 AM | | If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on. - Terence McKenna | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/17/2009 1:00:13 PM | | If the first word "life" doesn't clear up the issue of abortion then it's hard to think getting fried is covered by the pursuit of happiness. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/18/2009 4:56:52 PM |
If the first word "life" doesn't clear up the issue of abortion then it's hard to think getting fried is covered by the pursuit of happiness.
Yea, you definitely have a point shmodzilla.
I've seen some posts where people say, "I wouldn't want MY doctor, pilot, bus driver, etc. on pot!" Well, I have some news for you, just because it's illegal for them to do pot, they probably still do it anyway!
In b4 "oh well, it would make it easier for them!" Well it seems like it's not too hard for them as it is. I was with a friend a few weeks ago that smoked a bol before going to the municipal building ( where the police are!) for a court date (as a witness to an auto accident). | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/18/2009 5:25:27 PM | it would actually be cheaper. and, I'm not opposed to the government becoming dependent on the tax dollars. there are ways that the government can be involved that does benefit all levels of users. not that the government does a good job of it ... just take a look at alcohol, prescription drugs and tobacco!
and, you KNOW that decriminalization is not going to happen without some type of government oversight. there's just too much money involved. law enforcement salaries and retirement, judges and all those court employees; in fact, whole agencies would have to be re-tooled. decriminalization puts control too far into the hands of the people and that's too scary for just about everyone except the beat cop who has to deal with all the paperwork, hassle, ridiculous bureaucracy. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/18/2009 5:28:57 PM | yes, and because cigarettes were Cheap, CHeap, CHEap, CHEAp, CHEAP! the whole entire glamorization of smoking was done at the cost of lives!
I smoked for three years: from my 18th birthday to my 21st birthday. fortunately, I was one of the lucky ones that could just put them down, cold turkey, no problem. but, the real motivating factor was that a pack of cigarettes had gone up to $0.50 per pack! that was way out of my willingness to budget for it.
if you correlate the increase in price to the decrease in smoking, it begins to make sense. cigarette smoking costs us more than marijuana smoking ever has or could! | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/21/2009 7:59:59 PM | | this is very true; I've known daily users since I was a teenager - most would not consider another drug, even tobacco or alcohol! | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/21/2009 8:00:49 PM | | was it Shakespeare that said: "first, let's kill all the lawyers?" | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/21/2009 8:04:27 PM | EGADS! all traces of marijuana leave a person's system after just thirty (30) days of abstinence! undisputable F A C T !
as any of the medical profession, psychobabble / new agers, sociologists, etc will tell you, it takes only thirty (30) days, or less, to break a habit.
would that all such self-"inflicted" abuse were so easy to clean up from! | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/21/2009 10:47:32 PM | | Oakland CA just passed an ordinance passing a law to tax medical marijuana. Legalization is on it's way. Slow but sure. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/21/2009 11:12:26 PM | | ^^^ It's about time. I just wish it would happen here. I know a lot of people that can use pot for actual medical reasons. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/22/2009 12:52:50 PM | Tnfa you are full of it. I can say that there was no physical withdrawl syptoms for me when I went without after several years of daily use which by scientific standards is a fairly heavy usage. I had no ill effects at all in fact I didn't crave it nor do I crave it now.
You are only 26 by your profile maybe you just need to live for a while before you make broad statements without life experience. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:04:10 PM | | Oaksterdam is by far and away a leader in how the decriminalization / legalization process / progress is likely to go! | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:05:51 PM | | 11 states and growing, especially with Obama as President, have some form of legal medical marijuana. check out Americans for Safe Access website for research, references and links. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/27/2009 7:46:02 AM | To me, the greatest source of unfairness in the treatment of pot smokers comes from the fact that the metabolites remain detectable for a long time after the effects wear off.
A person can get absolutely blind drunk (so that they are a danger to themselves and others) and still legally drive or pass an employment substance screen the next morning.
By contrast, a person can get a DUI or lose their job by being tested SEVERAL DAYS after they last actually got high. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/27/2009 6:10:43 PM | | Thats such a shame that your job should be a higher priority than smoking pot i know. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/27/2009 6:56:55 PM | Illicit drug use (not manufacture, ie. cultivated drugs only) should definitely be decriminalised. I agree with their illegal status however, like driving over the limit. Intoxication is rightly grounds for dismissal from the workplace or expulsion from a social venue, but the idea to be putting kids in prison for smoking a bit of weed is that of an idiot.
The line between totalitarian dictate and egalitarian representation is clear and must be legally defined in any circumstance. Thus far the legal argument against is "public safety concerns due to individual health administration" and "breaking the law irrespective of the nature of the law."
The driving force behind criminalisation of pot is sensationalistic claims of psychotic potential entirely unsupported with concerted medical evidence. It is not even supported fully by the medical community.
As an example of the political status of scientific issues, I recall reading an employment advertisement by local Parliament for scientific advisors. In the job description, firstly the qualification requirements were "any relevant educational background" for example in matters of social concerns regarding alcohol abuse a background in anthropology or chemical biology would do just fine, even though one studies statistics and the other medical-biological data. The second part of the employment requirement was stated "will be prepared to find themselves subordinate to the office of the secretary of the Minister" which is to say, you will do whatever research supports the conclusions we dictate to you.
To clarify, the job was as a Parliamentary scientific advisor, the guy who's research backs up why a piece of legislation was made.
Now since I've worked in various public offices (records, Parliament House), I've seen reports by Parliamentary advisors, for example social psychologist papers on effective methods to reduce youth homelessness. What I am fully aware of is that the conclusions were handed to the "advisor" who then developed a paper which led to those conclusions. What I am also aware of is these politically scientific papers are rarely, if ever recognised by the scientific community and certainly receive no celebration under peer review.
The weed issue is this exactly. Best bet is to talk to a variety of medical professionals regarding its use, for accurate celebration of its health aspects. In fact, some are noted for prescribing it (under conditions of informed consent) as a chronic painkiller with relatively minimal side effects.
Cocaine is used in hospitals for opening breathing passages with similarly minimal comparative side effects, too by the way. Worked in a few hospitals as well.
The primary dangers according to my research, of any intoxicant are those of excessive use. Extended personal habits can most certainly affect brain function, an issue of psychological disciplines, and long periods of intoxication can have a detrimental effect upon brain chemistry, a psychiatric issue.
The concern of governments is the inability of individuals to effectively govern their own behaviour, and therefore the tendency particularly among young people to abuse otherwise reasonable freedoms, both costing the community big money in rehabilitation and providing a danger to the community in the meantime. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:32:16 PM | Couldn't have said it better myself!
That old, 'people use drugs to escape reality', thing, certainly is the case in a number of instances (how many, I don't know). But is true - and I think I am repeating what was so eloquently put above me, by vanaheim, that dependance is dependance is dependance. It matters little what the substance or way of thinking, is.
I think that prolonged heavy usage of anything is harmful for you. Horrible diseases like colon cancer and heart disease are not helped by people being addicted to protein (meat) all thier life, are they?
And families that break up (or worse) because of the liberal use of alcool, don't need to be protected from it, do they?
Should be controlled - not, illegal. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal?
Posted: 7/30/2009 4:58:43 AM | | Bottom line - moderation in all things. (Except for chocolate). | |
|
Home
login 
