| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 2/16/2005 9:06:37 AM | | weed won't ever be legalized because pharmicutical companies will make no money........weed is easy to grow........all drugs will never be legalized because it will be made easier to get over the border and the U.S. can't control the countries that produce it........one of the biggest money makers, for pain medication, was oxicontin.......prescribed heroin....... | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 227 | |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 2/16/2005 9:15:10 AM |
Very interesting concept.You're probably right.
It was in 'Sliders' once. | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 2/16/2005 9:53:34 AM | Well the rational argument for criminlizing marijuanna is probably slightly disingenuous, excepting the ability to do a roadside test. However, this is not entirely necessary as sobriety tests without 'blowing' are reasonable reasons to insist on a drug test at the police station...the same could be done for pot.
Of course, the problem is that there are two schools of thought when this topic comes out...one is make EVERYTHING illegal from ciggies to booze and hell, you can get pretty baked on Nyquil, let's do that one too.. The other side says make it all legal and controlled, collect the taxes and use 'em for treatment of addictions.
But where is the worst damage coming from when it comes to pot? Probably not medical...if you're smoking so many joints that you are at a real risk of having that affect your lungs etc...then you got more problems than just cancer concerns. The 'stepping stone' argument? Sorry, that doesn't pan out as the number of actual pot smokers (those who've done it more than once or twice but not regularly) don't show an automatic movement to harder drugs any more than booze does.
No the biggest damage right now from pot is the millions of people in jail or given a criminal record (that impedes employment) because of a personal use conviction. The cost of non-violent drug offenders in the U.S. prison system is outrageous and the result is overcrowding which means that violent offenders are being released earlier in their sentences.
The biggest damage is the billions being spent to fight what is essentially a battle that they have no hope in winning. This might be the time to declare the war on drugs over and the war on addiction can then begin. You'll find the money better spent and the outcomes much, much better.
Pharmaceuticals, tobbaco companies and the booze manufacturers are against it. Why? Not because it's dangerous but because they're competition. As a comedian once said "Valium doesn't want to go up against marijuanna...it will lose." These lobbies are powerful and there is enough fear (and to be honest, prudish and proper Christian citizens) who make any government who wants to change the laws put in a position where they will lose a lot of political capital for enacting a change in law that really, in the long run, doesn't make a big difference. We're not talking about funding schools here, we're talking about making it easier to score some weed on a Friday night. It's not worth their while.
Weed should be legal. It's capacity to harm citizens is greater when it's illegal than it is when it's legal. But on the other side of the fence, no one is REALLY having that much trouble scoring a joint here and there if they want.... | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 2/16/2005 10:06:45 AM | don't show an automatic movement to harder drugs any more than booze does.
Exactly.... Actually I think booze is more dangerous to people who use it
and those around them than smoking weed. I'd love to see some
statistical comparisons.
We all know how well prohibition worked out... about as well as the "War on Drugs".
You can't stop people from smoking pot... so why not make it work for you?
Tax the crap out of it like cigarettes. | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 2/16/2005 10:56:39 AM | Ive smoked weed pretty much daily since 1979...
Lived in Holland for 8 years in The Hague where herb is sold over the counter.
Strangly, the fabric of society in Holland hasnt broken down, and, im still employed in
a technical job.
Just legalize it and take the tax.
As for gateway drug...any liar who says they started on hard drugs following cannabis is a bullshitter, as, im fairly certain that at some point during their childhood, an adult has given them an alcholic drink at some point.
Ive NEVER felt like i would want to try hard drugs following a long time smoking herb.
Most of my family smoke grass, but, god help any member of the family caught with hard drugs.
If its man made its fallable.
I believe that...some people who smoke will move onto harder drugs...same as a drinker could turn into an alcholic..its an individual thing.
Like the poster says....
God gave us grass
Man gave us booze...who do you trust. | |
|
79dude
|
Joined: 6/8/2004
Msg: 231 | |
| |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/17/2005 7:52:43 PM | I think it should be legal! Sure there's going to be people who abuse weed and waste their lives on it - they're perfectly entitled to that! just as some people do with alcohol I'm sure- as long as they don't cause harm to anyone as a consequence, their lives are theirs to with as they please.
"Over himself, over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign" - J S Mill | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 233 | |
| |
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 234 | |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/17/2005 8:01:52 PM | One needs only to look at the reasons it was made illegal in the first place.
William Randolph Hearst
Dupont
Harry Ainslinger ...........
GREED
For thirty years American business mogul and newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst had fed the public racist attacks on the Mexicans, caricaturing them as lazy marihuana smokers (an Americanized version of the Mexican term). This was probably because in the Spanish American war in the late 1800s, Pancho Villa and the marijuana smoking Mexican army had seized 800,000 acres of Hearsts land.[v] Fortunately for Hearst, his newspaper empire served him with plenty of audience for his lies and propaganda. In those days there was no Internet and this served as mass communication. Hearst newspapers were a major factor in shaping public opinion.[vi]
The money William Randolph Hearst made came from more than just newspapers. His empire extended to many sectors of business and industry, including the production of paper. Alongside this a chemical company named DuPont had just developed a process for using chemicals to better manufacture paper products, and was also looking to forge a strong empire with synthetic fibers like nylon and rayon. These industries were about to be overthrown. New farming machines were going to make hemp more easily cultivated, and cannabis was about to become the number one crop in the country. The synthetic fibers DuPont patented could be easily replicated and replaced by Hemp products. DuPont and Hearst stood to lose millions of dollars. Their companies would be decimated.
For twenty years Hearst had proclaimed resinous cannabis the killer weed from Mexico. Now Hearst newspapers began to proclaim crazed Negroes were raping white women after getting high on marihuana. (Previously the press had made the same accusations and claimed it was from cocaine.) White people who smoked resinous cannabis were supposedly subject to moral lapse and would perform unspeakable and vile acts. The newspapers said that resinous cannabis led to Voodoo-satanic music, or jazz, and that the music was somehow anti-white. Hearst told the public (and was summarily believed) resinous cannabis led to blood-lust and violence.
Into the picture stepped Harry J. Ainslinger. The new head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (we call them the Drug Enforcement Agency now), in 1931 he began a thirty year campaign against resinous cannabis. He spent the 1930s touring the country preaching the evils of the herb, filling Americans with blatant lies about the drug. He would often say, if the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marihuana he would drop dead of fright. Concerned mothers and citizens began to rally behind the anti-cannabis movement. Films like Reefer Madness, and Marijuana-Assassin of Youth, further destroyed the truth. Ainslinger lied with no abandon and the public was swayed.
And by 1937, secret meetings had been taking place for two years behind closed doors in Washington. The Treasury department had been plotting how to get rid of cannabis hemp to keep Hearst and DuPont happy, and the demonized marijuana was the answer. Treasury secretary Andrew Mellon was the uncle-in-law of Harry J. Ainslinger and had appointed him to his position with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Mellon was the owner of the Mellon Bank, one of the two banks for DuPont.[vii]
On the 14th of April, 1937, the House Ways and Means Committee introduced the Marihuana Tax Act. That particular committee is the only one that can send bills directly to the floor of congress, without the legislation going to other committees for debate. And still, the American Medical Association, upon learning that cannabis hemp was about to be prohibited, promptly sent their top expert, attorney and physician James Woodward.
Woodward spoke against the bill to Ainslinger and the Ways and Means Committee, saying We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chariman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any imitation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared. He further stated the only reason the AMA had not protested the tax earlier was because resinous cannabis had been described by the press for 20 years as killer weed from Mexico. Ainslinger denounced the American Medical Association (!) and had Woodward excused in the middle of his testimony.
And so the bill went to the house floor. The debating over the bill lasted about two minutes. One pertinent question was asked, Did anyone consult the AMA and get their opinion?
The Ways and Means Committee answered, yes, we have, a Dr. Wharton (mispronounced Woodward) and [the AMA] are in complete agreement!
And if one lie was not enough, Ainslingers testimony before congress was totally damning. With a similar disregard for the truth he said, marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind. He claimed as fact that minorities like Negroes and Mexicans committed 50% of violent crime, and those crimes could be directly traced to resinous cannabis. He said resinous cannabis caused white women to lie with Negroes, and in one case at the University of Minnesota, caused a girl to become pregnant. Congress was outraged. The lies stuck, and the marihuana tax act became law. | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/17/2005 8:26:04 PM | | People who are smoking weed are a hell of a lot nicer than people who are drinking. The only problem is they'll empty out your refrigerator and pantry. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 236 | |
| |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/17/2005 8:30:45 PM |
Naahhh.... unless you got brownies????
Anything you have! It's like attack of the hungry bears. | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/17/2005 11:02:57 PM | I think it should be legal I mean come cigs and alcy gives ****s your body up too like cancer and liver damage and shit. If you consume to much alcy you turn ****ed up anyway so why not take a drag and get ****ed up to 'cause in the end it's just gonna **** you up too. Even if it doesn't get legalized people will still do it. If you grow it it is natural anyway so smoke up!
* BY the way i've never smoked a bud a day in my life and I've never done any drugs or cigs or alcy*
:: Drink, smoke, and be marry for we die tomorrow!!! | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/18/2005 6:45:39 PM | | Pot is very dangerous because it makes you so hungry your az size can double in one year, if you're not careful. | |
|
moist
|
Joined: 5/12/2005
Msg: 240 | |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/18/2005 7:47:34 PM | To me it seems silly that you can buy Alchol but weed is illegal.
I am far more out of control when I get drunk. More wild, and out of control.
Pot...slowsssss me down and makes me lazy!
So I think they should make it legal, the government would make some money out of it, and the jails would have more room and money for the REAL BAD GUYS! | |
|
| |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/18/2005 9:10:37 PM |
Yeah, I know lots of "angry" drunks, but not a single "angry" stoner.
Yeah, you don't hear too often about the guy who had too many tokes, went home, beat his, abused his kids, and kicked Fluffy into next week | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/18/2005 11:22:11 PM | Interesting Shanna...I don't care if it is legal, but I definitely dont' want them driving.
That'd be funny with all the LOW speed chases ..hehe
I do believe smoking it daily takes a toll whereas it can be argued that 1-2 glasses of wine/ day is healthy... | |
|
moist
|
Joined: 5/12/2005
Msg: 244 | |
| |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/19/2005 12:00:46 AM | | not always...ever been with a PARANOID stoner Sarita...talk about a buzz assasin... | |
|
| |
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/19/2005 3:59:26 PM | I have no interest in weed
but yes it should be legalized | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/19/2005 6:01:46 PM |
Yea, I think Walmart should sell it..
I think the owners of Wal-mart should be smoking it. | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/19/2005 6:04:13 PM | | I've never been with a paranoid person for longer than 1 hour, whether they were on alcohol, smoking cigarettes, smoking dope, doing meth, or doing nothing. Paranoid people need stay home. Unfortunately they don't. They get out too much, go to church, and always vote Republican. | |
|
| Should weed be legal?
Posted: 5/22/2005 10:07:28 PM | Weed is Natural alcohol is not... they both can be bad for you, but if you can drink why not smoke up? I'd rather hang out with a bunch of high people then with alcholics... Legalized weed def!!
Only reason why they won't do it 'cause you can't tax it and people can grow it in there own yard so they won't make much money! | |
|
Home
login 
