Discussion: Legalizing Marijuana

[MessiahDecoy123]

lol, well here's the thing. People I label as "stoners" are just that, they have absolutely no effective impact on society.

most people have zero impact on society whether or not they're stoners.

BTW, when I smell marijuana, I don't think anything other than...."I'm about to vomit". Because that what it makes me feel like when I smell it...
When I smell someone spark up the ganja the good memories flood back. It smells great to most weed smokers.

Weed is one of the few things to naturally smell good when burned.

[Kelly]

most people have zero impact on society whether or not they're stoners.

you and I will have to agree to disagree on that...


When I smell someone spark up the ganja the good memories flood back. It smells great to most weed smokers.

Weed is one of the few things to naturally smell good when burned.

That's fine....

[Ace of Knaves]

Well they ain't smoked no reefer from Amsterdam I'm guessing. You can get weed that literally smells of lemons and strawberries out there :D

[Ace of Knaves]

you and I will have to agree to disagree on that...


It's true though, your average joe has no more impact on society than a stoner.

In my case, less so. I'm a "stoner" I build and renovate buildings and houses for a living. I have more impact on society than a shop worker who doesn't smoke weed.

[Kelly]

It's true though, your average joe has no more impact on society than a stoner.

In my case, less so. I'm a "stoner" I build and renovate buildings and houses for a living. I have more impact on society than a shop worker who doesn't smoke weed.

I will agree to disagree with you as well...:yay:

[Ace of Knaves]

So you are saying someone who works in a shop has more impact on society than someone who builds and renovates houses? But because the person who builds and renovates house smokes weed they are less of a person?

[Kelly]

So you are saying someone who works in a shop has more impact on society than someone who builds and renovates houses? But because the person who builds and renovates house smokes weed they are less of a person?

No, I believe our definition of "stoner" is different. I felt that was made clear in an earlier post.

Anyone that smokes weed, is not a "stoner" to me. Someone who smokes weed as the fundamental reason for living, and never sees the light of day, IS a "stoner" in my opinion. As in, they are "stoned" a good portion of their 24 hour day.

Someone working in a shop, has the ability to have an impact on the people around him/her, just as someone who renovates houses. A toke here or there doesn't impact that IMO. Not leaving your house does....:cwink:

[Ace of Knaves]

Oh right lol. I was barking up the wrong tree.

Even me as a smoker find those sorta people deplorable. Like Brad Pitt's character in True Romance. He was funny though :D

[MessiahDecoy123]

There are functional stoners though. Not all of them are recluse hermits without jobs.

I knew a guy who sold and smoked weed everyday who was in school to be a genetics engineer.

Wonder what animal or plant he wanted to engineer? :hehe:

[Kelly]

I don't see them as "stoners"....I see them as recreational users.


Even alcoholics that are able to keep a job, (my father was one of them), have areas in their lives that are a total shambles, his family was in that category. To work with my dad, you would have thought he was the sweetest, most up front guy you could meet. But, there were other parts of his life that were a total **** up.

[Carcharodon]

MARIJUANA 'CAFE' OPENS IN PORTLAND
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AD06O20091114?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews**** YES! That's practically my backyard!

[Paroxysm]

We had a Weed Cafe burn down in Vancouver a few years back, a dope place called "Blunt Brothers".

[Bathead]

There are functional stoners though. Not all of them are recluse hermits without jobs.

I knew a guy who sold and smoked weed everyday who was in school to be a genetics engineer.

Wonder what animal or plant he wanted to engineer? :hehe:

A monkey with four asses?

[omid17]

here's the video

Ore. cafe serves up cannabis for medical-marijuana users (http://m.www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Au8clzEPDiv3y8nnIO1joH2bvZx4/SIG=12fbfdhbm/**http%3A//cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews%3Fch=4226720%26cl=16670918%26lang=en)

[omid17]

http://i47.tinypic.com/fuqu6d.jpg

[Marx]

NJ MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL TO HEAD TO STATE SENATE
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/nyregion/12marijuana.html

[Kelly]

Damn Texas is just a MaryJane smokin' den of sinful pleasure...

[omid17]

:up:

[omid17]

Marijuana legalization bill approved by key Assembly committee (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNFVzYlgyHlUeJ5ga7_NbhQqLfp3Rg&cid=17593690928944&ei=DiNPS9CCLo7yNZ--vskC&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2F la-me-marijuana13-2010jan13%2C0%2C6864038.story%3Ftrack%3Drss)

[Ace of Knaves]

Seems stuff is moving forward then.

[omid17]

yup :)

[Paroxysm]

The Marijuana Party of Canada is leading the campaign for cannabis legalization.

and everyone knows the best weed is CANADIAN WEED!

[theShape]

and everyone knows the best weed is CANADIAN WEED!

Yeah, about that....

[Ace of Knaves]

Nope. The best weed is Amsterdam weed. No doubt.

[Spidey-Bat]

http://i47.tinypic.com/fuqu6d.jpg

There obviously would be more marijuana related arrests than violent crimes or possession of a deadly weapon because they occur more often.

I'm not against marijuana, but they shouldn't be using deceiving facts.

[Paroxysm]

Nope. The best weed is Amsterdam weed. No doubt.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,41588,00.html

Not anymore, we've taken over.

[MessiahDecoy123]

There obviously would be more marijuana related arrests than violent crimes or possession of a deadly weapon because they occur more often.

I'm not against marijuana, but they shouldn't be using deceiving facts.
No it's not deceiving.

They are emphasizing that more people are arrested for weed possesion than for violent crimes. That's a waste of resources and tax payer money. No one should be arrested for marijuana possession and the fact that government resources are used to arrest more weed smokers than violent criminals is both startling and sad.

[CelticPredator]

Who the **** is violent when on weed?

[Ace of Knaves]

lol yea. If I tried to be violent while I'm blazed? I'm getting knocked out, no doubt!

[Paroxysm]

I've heard about people getting violent after smoking weed and smashing empty baggy's over peoples heads. It happens all the time man.

[CelticPredator]

Who told you that bull?

[Ace of Knaves]

Told me what bull?

[StorminNorman]

Who the **** is violent when on weed?

No one said anything about people being violent when on weed - people were comparing the arrests of violent crime to marijuana related arrests.

[bell110]

No, I believe our definition of "stoner" is different. I felt that was made clear in an earlier post.

Anyone that smokes weed, is not a "stoner" to me. Someone who smokes weed as the fundamental reason for living, and never sees the light of day, IS a "stoner" in my opinion. As in, they are "stoned" a good portion of their 24 hour day.

Someone working in a shop, has the ability to have an impact on the people around him/her, just as someone who renovates houses. A toke here or there doesn't impact that IMO. Not leaving your house does....:cwink:

Hate to bring up something old, but I'm a little fuzzy on your definition here. I've known many "stoners" (as how I define the term) in my life, but only one person that would fall under your definition.

Does the being stoned a good portion of the day make them a stoner, or the never leaving the house part/contributing to society. What in your opinion would be the ratio between casual smokers and stoners?

I've known many people (one whose nickname was actually Stoner) that were stoned a good portion of the day. Wake up; smoke, go on lunch; smoke, come home; smoke until you go to bed. But they all had jobs. The one that didn't could only do so because he mooched off his girlfriend, who was also a stoner. And even then, he would run errands and do work around the house.

I'm really quite interested in how you see it. Your definition of a stoner reminds me of the guy who slepted on the couch in Half Baked.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Things are changing. I expect MJ to be legal across north america within the next 5 years. As soon as Cali legalizes it, the Canadian provinces will jump in

I personally see MJ in the same category as cofee (but of course with relaxing effects which are opposite to caffeine) instead of drugs or even legally obtainable alcohol and cigarrettes

[theShape]

I'm excited. It won't be long now. :up:

[StorminNorman]

Things are changing. I expect MJ to be legal across north america within the next 5 years. As soon as Cali legalizes it, the Canadian provinces will jump in

I personally see MJ in the same category as cofee (but of course with relaxing effects which are opposite to caffeine) instead of drugs or even legally obtainable alcohol and cigarrettes

There is no way you can compare coffee to marijuana. Not in terms of it's use.

[Manic]

Don't coffee and marijuana have opposite effects?

[CelticPredator]

Weed can wake me up pretty fast...to be honest.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

There is no way you can compare coffee to marijuana. Not in terms of it's use.

Of course. One is inhaled and the other is drank so as far as consumption it is different. They both stimulate your nervous system but of course with caffeine enhancing alertness and marijuana relaxing the system. After all, the system in Amsterdam does group marijuana and cofee together in coffee shops so I do not believe to be too far off in the assesment.

In terms of drugs, marijuana does not compare to harmful substances. There are no recorded deaths of overdose and the consumption has been going on for generations so if there were serious health effects, like cigarrettes, awareness of the health dangers would be very clear to this generation. Marijuana does not record physical addiction and can be consumed in different ways, not just inhaled.

In terms of legally obtained drugs such as alcohol and cigarretes, marijuana has them beat on the addictive side. There is no comparison there and these two mentioned cause hundreds of clearly recorded deaths a year. Funny thing is that you will go to jail for consuming something far less dangerous than a highly addictive substance you can obtain at a bar or at a gas station.

As a matter of fact, caffeine develops physical addiction. Marijuana does not. I really do believe that if the effect of the smoke is negligible, marijuana may be far more harmless than most things out there. I personally do not see a relation to real street drugs, or legalized drugs so I think its more comparable to coffee and if not it would be on its own category just as tame as coffee but without the physical addiction.

[Kelly]

Hate to bring up something old, but I'm a little fuzzy on your definition here. I've known many "stoners" (as how I define the term) in my life, but only one person that would fall under your definition.

Does the being stoned a good portion of the day make them a stoner, or the never leaving the house part/contributing to society. What in your opinion would be the ratio between casual smokers and stoners?

I've known many people (one whose nickname was actually Stoner) that were stoned a good portion of the day. Wake up; smoke, go on lunch; smoke, come home; smoke until you go to bed. But they all had jobs. The one that didn't could only do so because he mooched off his girlfriend, who was also a stoner. And even then, he would run errands and do work around the house.

I'm really quite interested in how you see it. Your definition of a stoner reminds me of the guy who slepted on the couch in Half Baked.

That is why I said...."I believe..." as in, IMO...:yay: I'm not saying that is everyone's definition...but in clarifying a post from an earlier discussion...that is why I made the post.

[StorminNorman]

Of course. One is inhaled and the other is drank so as far as consumption it is different. They both stimulate your nervous system but of course with caffeine enhancing alertness and marijuana relaxing the system. After all, the system in Amsterdam does group marijuana and cofee together in coffee shops so I do not believe to be too far off in the assesment.

In terms of drugs, marijuana does not compare to harmful substances. There are no recorded deaths of overdose and the consumption has been going on for generations so if there were serious health effects, like cigarrettes, awareness of the health dangers would be very clear to this generation. Marijuana does not record physical addiction and can be consumed in different ways, not just inhaled.

In terms of legally obtained drugs such as alcohol and cigarretes, marijuana has them beat on the addictive side. There is no comparison there and these two mentioned cause hundreds of clearly recorded deaths a year. Funny thing is that you will go to jail for consuming something far less dangerous than a highly addictive substance you can obtain at a bar or at a gas station.

As a matter of fact, caffeine develops physical addiction. Marijuana does not. I really do believe that if the effect of the smoke is negligible, marijuana may be far more harmless than most things out there. I personally do not see a relation to real street drugs, or legalized drugs so I think its more comparable to coffee and if not it would be on its own category just as tame as coffee but without the physical addiction.

The comparison to alcohol, while obviously imperfect, is best simply due to the effect the impairing effects. Yes it's not as addictive, they are not as bad for you, blah blah blah - I get all of that.

But you can't compare smoking a joint to enjoying a cup of coffee.

[Ace of Knaves]

You can get addicted to caffeine though. And it also has side effects.

There was a study over here a while ago about people who have a cup of coffee every single morning. If they miss out their "fix" ie they don't have a coffee one morning the survey found that they were much less alert and more irritable during the day.

Now it might just be me, but I've been smoking weed, and by weed I mean high grade skunk, since I was 15/16. I haven't smoked a single spliff for the last 2 weeks and you know what? Hasn't effect me... AT ALL.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Double pp

[8Diagrams(WU)]

The comparison to alcohol, while obviously imperfect, is best simply due to the effect the impairing effects. Yes it's not as addictive, they are not as bad for you, blah blah blah - I get all of that.

But you can't compare smoking a joint to enjoying a cup of coffee.

Explain to me in detail why not. Were talking about the health and stimulating effects of a substance and how damaging they could be to an average persons health. the point of comparison is valid to caffeine. It seems to me that your point of comparison is in terms of enjoyment which is not the point at all. Dont just brush arguments off as blah blah

[Manic]

Is this a thread about legalizing the maryjoowana or regulating caffeine?

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Is this a thread about legalizing the maryjoowana or regulating caffeine?

What id like to know is why the Dutch society has not crumbled and destroyed itself with marijuana addicts considering that marijuana is sold in abundancy in most coffee shops. I mean the argument is that marijuana is a damaging substance and that is why it should be illegal

[Paroxysm]

We have quite a few weed/coffee shops in and around Vancouver. I don't see our society crumbling anytime soon.

[StorminNorman]

You can get addicted to caffeine though. And it also has side effects.

There was a study over here a while ago about people who have a cup of coffee every single morning. If they miss out their "fix" ie they don't have a coffee one morning the survey found that they were much less alert and more irritable during the day.

Now it might just be me, but I've been smoking weed, and by weed I mean high grade skunk, since I was 15/16. I haven't smoked a single spliff for the last 2 weeks and you know what? Hasn't effect me... AT ALL.

I am sure.

Explain to me in detail why not. Were talking about the health and stimulating effects of a substance and how damaging they could be to an average persons health. the point of comparison is valid to caffeine. It seems to me that your point of comparison is in terms of enjoyment which is not the point at all. Dont just brush arguments off as blah blah

I am not arguing against the legalization of marijuana - I am as big a supporter as you will find - what I am against is the comparison of marijuana to coffee because anyone who has had a cup of coffee and had a joint would be dishonest to tell you it's a similar experience. They aren't the same.

You can drink a cup of coffee and drive through the streets without the slightest bit of impairment. Smoking a joint while driving through the busy streets is not a good idea. Having a cup of coffee and then going to work is a fine idea, smoking a joint and then going to work is a sign of irresponsibility.

[A&W]

hey storman, it honestly depends on the person and how often they smoke and how much the smoke. If I haven't smoked in a while then yeah I'd get pretty high. but if it's during a time period where I smoke every day, then smoking will not impair anymore than a mountain dew would, which is not at all. It just really doesn't work that way. All it does is mellow you out and help you relax. coordination, depth perception, comprehension of reality, and judgement go unaffected.

anyways I used to support legalizing it and taxing it like cigarettes, but rescently I realized the best way to go would be for the government to be the sole producers of it. Instead of just having the taxes go towards our deficit, we should have all of the profits go towards our deficit.

that way when you buy a joint, your also paying down our nation's debt at the same time. In addition we don't have to worry about then putting things like nicotine in there or marketing towards children. NO tv commercials, no ads, no magazine ads, no fancy expensive packaging with expensive cardboard display kits. Just sell the stuff at a price low enough to beat out the black market and put the money towards our debt.

Sadly that would have a lower chance of happening than just regular legalization. People would have catch phrases like "the government shouldn't be selling drugs" that would catch people's attention. Plus there is the whole "C" and "S" words people would use.

[A&W]

I support legalizing the whole shebang. Make one joint the cost of a pack of cigarettes, then tax the hell out of it and put those taxes towards something worthwhile.
if one joint costed that much, people would just buy it on the black market and say they got it at the store. dealers would go unarrested because their customers aren't getting arrested, thus not ratting em out.

you can't charge that much or your just putting more money into the hands of criminal organizations. Make it like 10 cents for a joint, with 2 dollars in taxes added on. That is more appropiate.

[Marx]

CBS CORP REJECTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION AD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/cbs-corporation-bans-ad-c_b_457094.html

[moraldeficiency]

CBS CORP REJECTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION AD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/cbs-corporation-bans-ad-c_b_457094.html

That title is pathetic but upon reading the article CBS is even more pathetic. Still who cares, it's just CBS and I can't even think of a show on that network that I would bother watching. They should take that money and just work on getting their own billboards put up.

53% support? That's pretty kick ass to see that at least regular people without their heads up their asses realize how silly hemp restrictions really are and how much money it takes out of everyone's pockets to defend against something some of our greatest founding fathers partook in regularly.

[The Riddler]

marijuana is the number one cash crop by a fairly wide margin.

legalize it. law enforcement should treat it like alcohol.

[Marx]

DEA RAID CONCERNS OTHER 'POT CLUBS'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/dea-raid-has-pot-clubs-wo_n_464598.html

[MessiahDecoy123]

So they basically ignored the presidents memo that said to back away from medical marijuana cafes.

[Kelly]

They should be concerned.

Illegal is still illegal.

[moraldeficiency]

They should be concerned.

Illegal is still illegal.

Kel, it used to be illegal for women to vote. Some laws are too stupid to uphold or care when they are with the exception of how much money and man power was wasted on this which could have gone to dealing with criminals people do and should care about.

[Paroxysm]

Kel, it used to be illegal for women to vote. Some laws are too stupid to uphold or care when they are with the exception of how much money and man power was wasted on this which could have gone to dealing with criminals people do and should care about.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!! So true Moral, so true.

[MessiahDecoy123]

They should be concerned.

Illegal is still illegal.
But which law do you obey? Out dated federal laws or newer and current state laws? Both are laws, are they not?

The DEA has a choice to prioritize based on the democratic will of state residents but they're choosing to raid pot clubs because they lose so much sleep when a cancer patient gets the munchies.

Observing federal laws over state laws is a personal choice and the DEA are personally against marijuana. This has nothing to do with public safety which should be their prime concern and function. They have personal vendettas against weed users for some God-forsaken reason. Which means ignore medical evidence and democracy.

When the president says prioritze based on state laws, you prioritize based on state laws. Why bust a medical establishment that is operating legally under state law when people are breaking state and federal laws selling harder and far more addictive drugs? It's a waste of resources and taxes.

I hope who ever greenlighted this operation is demoted. Ignoring both the president and current state laws is ignoring the democratic will of the people.

[Cuyan]

WTF is a "pot club"? I go to a "Dispensary" and it doesn't even remotely resemble a club. I think part of the stigma associated with marijuana comes from simple lack of knowledge. The very labeling of Dispensaries and Distributors as "clubs" seems to further that notion. In my opinion, the medical marijuana laws and regulations here in California have been handled quite well. All the dispensaries I have been to have been nothing but professional and controlled 100%; and to be honest, I'd much rather walk into a dispensary at night, than some random liquor store.

[omid17]

got my card yesterday

[StorminNorman]

Read an interesting article on Druge yesterday about Marijuana usage with the senior citizens. The Baby Boomer generation is doubling the amount of elderly stoners. Great news, politically, for marijuana.

[omid17]

it was my first time goin in a clinic yesterday, saw so many older people from like 40 and up

[A&W]

Kel, it used to be illegal for women to vote. Some laws are too stupid to uphold or care when they are with the exception of how much money and man power was wasted on this which could have gone to dealing with criminals people do and should care about.
true but you can't blame law enforcement. There are people who think some of Obama's proposals are stupid. That doesn't mean that when they become law, the country can just pretend congress never passed that bill.

[moraldeficiency]

true but you can't blame law enforcement. There are people who think some of Obama's proposals are stupid. That doesn't mean that when they become law, the country can just pretend congress never passed that bill.

Sure I can. Law enforcement has tremdous say in what they priortize and what they don't. They may look the other way with some hooker if she informs on someone more important. They decide what their day is going to entail and they choose whether to put man power into say a hemp bust or a child abduction case. Read the article we're talking about and tell me if you think that was a good use of your law enforcement or if they should have probably been doing something better with their/our time and money.

[Marx]

STATES BECOMING MORE ACCEPTING OF MARIJUANA?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-08-marijuana_N.htm

[omid17]

for sure, it's gonna happen

love how dispensaries also carry edibles

[Superman]

hey storman, it honestly depends on the person and how often they smoke and how much the smoke. If I haven't smoked in a while then yeah I'd get pretty high. but if it's during a time period where I smoke every day, then smoking will not impair anymore than a mountain dew would, which is not at all. It just really doesn't work that way. All it does is mellow you out and help you relax. coordination, depth perception, comprehension of reality, and judgement go unaffected.

anyways I used to support legalizing it and taxing it like cigarettes, but rescently I realized the best way to go would be for the government to be the sole producers of it. Instead of just having the taxes go towards our deficit, we should have all of the profits go towards our deficit.

that way when you buy a joint, your also paying down our nation's debt at the same time. In addition we don't have to worry about then putting things like nicotine in there or marketing towards children. NO tv commercials, no ads, no magazine ads, no fancy expensive packaging with expensive cardboard display kits. Just sell the stuff at a price low enough to beat out the black market and put the money towards our debt.
Sadly that would have a lower chance of happening than just regular legalization. People would have catch phrases like "the government shouldn't be selling drugs" that would catch people's attention. Plus there is the whole "C" and "S" words people would use.I really like that ideal.... But then again I'm high as a kite right now so I don't know if it's right or not, I just like it. :cwink::hehe::hehe:

[BlackLantern]

no one beats the black market....you can't beat a guy who lives out of his car

[8Diagrams(WU)]

If you can buy the stuff at a coffee shop, or a convinence store as opposed to going to a shady dealers place, some people will be willing to pay taxes for it. If the thing becomes legal and distributed by the gov. the blackmarket will shrink significantly.

[BlackLantern]

Ill still buy from my guy, just to stick it to The Man

[Alastor]

Ive only had bad experiences with dealers, and the whole situation for me is always awkward. I'd glady pay a tax if I could go buy it from a creepy gas station clerk instead.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Wal-Mart employee fired for using medical marijuana.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35913492/ns/business-careers/

[Majic Walrus]

Saw that. Non-issue. Wal-Mart has the right as an employer to terminate someone for using any substance that they feel like firing them over. Including medical marijuana. Or alcohol. Or nicotine for that matter.

[Master Chief]

Ive only had bad experiences with dealers, and the whole situation for me is always awkward. I'd glady pay a tax if I could go buy it from a creepy gas station clerk instead.

I'm friends with my dealer, but I agree. I would very much so prefer picking up a few grams along with munchies at the convenience store, not to mention not needing to worry about crotching my stash anymore. :fhm:

Plus it'd be hilarious to watch the kids who can't handle their s**t trippin out. :awesome:

[mclay18]

After reading articles about marijuana, I think it should be legalized and taxed like alcohol should be. Have people ID people over a certain age who buy marijuana to control it from being bought by underage users.

The potential financial and regulation benefits of pot should really taken into account.

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA COULD LEGALIZE MARIJUANA WITH VOTE IN NOVEMBER
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-gutwillig/ca-marijuana-legalization_b_511484.html

[omid17]

CALIFORNIA COULD LEGALIZE MARIJUANA WITH VOTE IN NOVEMBER
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-gutwillig/ca-marijuana-legalization_b_511484.htmlyup :up:

[Superman]

CALIFORNIA COULD LEGALIZE MARIJUANA WITH VOTE IN NOVEMBER
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-gutwillig/ca-marijuana-legalization_b_511484.html*Sings*

"California here I come...."

:awesome:

[Ace of Knaves]

This tune is needed...

nGsEt-qtOqs

[Superman]

This tune is needed...

nGsEt-qtOqsYaa Mon!

:hehe:

[BlackLantern]

Saw that. Non-issue. Wal-Mart has the right as an employer to terminate someone for using any substance that they feel like firing them over. Including medical marijuana. Or alcohol. Or nicotine for that matter.

I think what people should attempt to understand is that weed still has a social stigma and legalizing it is very different that it being considered acceptable

[Ace of Knaves]

Why does it have a social stigma though? Because of the silly stereotypical stoner type character portrayed in multiple films and tv shows and other media?

The truth is, not a lot of people who smoke ganja are actually like that. Sure there is some, stereotypes always have some truth to them. But if these people who believe the movie/tv show stoner is widespread/common can't accept normal people who smoke weed then they are the ones that are small minded and ignorant, thusly, shouldn't really be paid attention to.

And it might be just where i'm from, but smoking weed isn't really frowned upon socially. I mean, some pubs and bars let people smoke joints in the beer garden or whatever. Plenty of people smoke weed socially. Legality just doesn't come into it.

[BlackLantern]

people are kind of uptight here in the northeast US...from CT on up....its ok to booze and smoke like a chimney, but you're labeled a dirty hippie type if you smoke weed

[Ace of Knaves]

Ah yea i guess i know what you mean. It will take a while to get rid of that "hippy" stigma, for sure. But then yea, that's just small minded people who think like that really. So **** em is what i say! :D

[BlackLantern]

I say treat it like cigarettes....last thing I need is someone in my office who reeks of the stuff after lunch....our office building has a pretty strict smoking policy anyway

[Ace of Knaves]

Well smoking weed before or during work, including lunch, is ****ing stupid anyway. I dunno why anyone would want to do that.

But what someone does in their own time after work is up to them.

[Bathead]

According to a documentary I once saw, the original reason that Pot was made illegal and was summarily stigmatized by a concerted and deliberate effort by the governement was it was seen as a way of putting some kind of controls on the influx of Mexican immigrants that was occurring during the 30's. Racism rears it's ugly head yet again.

[Ace of Knaves]

I thought it was just because the American government doesn't like pacifists and was scared weed would make everyone pacifists.


:D

[The BatDude]

"Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And i will advertise it"
- Peter Tosh "Legalize It"

[omid17]

You guys need to watch the Union, awesome documentary on cannabis

[Bathead]

I thought it was just because the American government doesn't like pacifists and was scared weed would make everyone pacifists.


:D

No. it's because the American government didn't like Mexicans. And, to a lesser extent, still don't.

[omid17]

weren't they still closing down clinics in LA? just passed one yesterday with a grand opening sign

[The BatDude]

You guys need to watch the Union, awesome documentary on cannabis
I've seen it, its good. You should check out How Weed Won the West
and Super High Me is funny as hell and worth watching.


US drug laws are the root of the problem in Mexico's drug war (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/146090/are_u.s._pot_laws_the_root_cause_of_mexican_drug_v iolence)

[The BatDude]

Noam Chomsky on Pot (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Noam-Chomsky-on-Pot)

[A&W]

Saw that. Non-issue. Wal-Mart has the right as an employer to terminate someone for using any substance that they feel like firing them over. Including medical marijuana. Or alcohol. Or nicotine for that matter.actually it's illegal to discriminate against an employee for the use of a lawful product in their personal life.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Saw that. Non-issue. Wal-Mart has the right as an employer to terminate someone for using any substance that they feel like firing them over. Including medical marijuana. Or alcohol. Or nicotine for that matter.
Alcohol and nicotine are not medicine. Also no one gets fired for using those drugs privately. It's ridiculous that a less harmful drug with far more medical uses is forbidden simply because it gives you the munchies and giggles. That should be considered cruel and unusual punishment to withhold medicine from those who suffer simply because it can be used for recreation also.

So they should be allowed to fire someone for legally using prescription drugs, like Oxycontin or Valium? Those drugs are far more dangerous than weed.

[omid17]

I've seen it, its good. You should check out How Weed Won the West
and Super High Me is funny as hell and worth watching.


US drug laws are the root of the problem in Mexico's drug war (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/146090/are_u.s._pot_laws_the_root_cause_of_mexican_drug_v iolence)for sure

Alcohol and nicotine are not medicine. Also no one gets fired for using those drugs privately. It's ridiculous that a less harmful drug with far more medical uses is forbidden simply because it gives you the munchies and giggles. That should be considered cruel and unusual punishment to withhold medicine from those who suffer simply because it can be used for recreation also.

So they should be allowed to fire someone for legally using prescription drugs, like Oxycontin or Valium? Those drugs are far more dangerous than weed.
:up:

[The BatDude]

for sure
mexico_feels_offended_by_medical_marijuana_in_us (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/03/mexico_feels_offended_by_medical_marijuana_in_us.p hp#more)

Alcohol and nicotine are not medicine. Also no one gets fired for using those drugs privately. It's ridiculous that a less harmful drug with far more medical uses is forbidden simply because it gives you the munchies and giggles. That should be considered cruel and unusual punishment to withhold medicine from those who suffer simply because it can be used for recreation also.

So they should be allowed to fire someone for legally using prescription drugs, like Oxycontin or Valium? Those drugs are far more dangerous than weed.
What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not been discovered. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[The BatDude]

Chris Bennett's case on religious use of cannabis: Update
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/22777)

[Excel]

Think of all the drug dealers who would be put of usiness by weed legalization.

[Kelly]

What?


As far as Drug Dealers, they will probably simply go on to something else, or continue to sell what they already sell, they will just not have marijuana in their inventory. Or they will keep it in their inventory, and sell it under the radar tax free, or sell it to minors.


If you are looking at decrease in crime, the biggest reduction will be in marijuana related arrests, because it will be legal. What you will see a rise in, how big is not known, but you will possibly see a rise in DUI's... because what usually happens is,
*person is stopped...for driving weird...
*they search car and driver, find marijuana...
*they take them in, and the Prosecutors office goes for the biggest crime which at this time is possession depending on how much they found.

If Marijuana is legalized it will be simply a DUI, probably no jail time IF THEY LEARN.

[The BatDude]

marijuana_may_not_impair_driving_ability (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/03/attorney_marijuana_may_not_impair_driving_ability. php)

[Kelly]

Sorry, but you gotta show me a lot more than that to convince me.

[The BatDude]

Start the video around 1:58.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m88oZw1dKtA

There's not much evidence you can show. Everyone is a different driver.

[Kelly]

One thing that evidence does show is that it does impair the lateral travel....in other words, it causes a problem staying in your lane. That is kind of a problem...this is the area that is consistent throughout all the studies I have read.

Now, please understand, I'm all for legalization, this is not an argument against legalization. I do think many questions need to be answered and some legalities other than the legalization need to be visited.

[The BatDude]

I understand
Another thing that it impairs is depth perception

[MessiahDecoy123]

Weed makes you drive extremely careful. You end up driving 35 mph on the freeway.

It hardly impairs you as much as alcohol which causes over 10,000 deaths a year.

[The BatDude]

If anything it's the Indica strain that impairs, since it gives a drowsy stoned feeling. The same goes for Medicines that give a drowsy side effects. Might be talking out my ass but hey it's just an observation.

[Fading]

Weed makes you drive extremely careful. You end up driving 35 mph on the freeway.

It hardly impairs you as much as alcohol which causes over 10,000 deaths a year.

Agreed. I think it's stupid to drive impaired under any circumstance, weed, alcohol, or while talking on cell phones or eating even (which the last two have caused plenty of wrecks as well). However, the 1 time I've been in a car while everyone was stoned back while I still smoked it, basically we spent 20 minutes trying to decide who was the least stoned, and then drove to Walmart for munchies driving about 25 mph under the speed limit constantly looking over our shoulders. We were so worried about being arrested that we were overly cautious.



As for it being smoked at the workplace, etc., no. I'm for it being legalized, and have said so in the past. However it does impair you, like it or not. Just as you're not allowed to drink while at work, you shouldn't smoke pot while at work. In cigarettes case, while more deadly than alcohol or pot, it doesn't impair your judgement to the degrees of the other two, so I understand it for stressed out workers smoking in smoking areas.

IMO, for this to work, pot would have to be under the same rules as alcohol and tobacco combined. As in no smoking it in any situation that requires concentration in public areas, such as driving, or in an office or more dangerous setting like a factory or construction work. Also it be limited to restaurants that allow it and make it known that they have a weed smoking section in their restaurant. Even tho I'm for it being legalized, my picture of it being legal deals more with smoking it at home with friends, in front of your house while you set around, or even more moderate amounts in a restaurant that allows it, not in any situations that could potentially put others at risk. Even if you feel like drinking and driving and think it should be your right, you are putting others lives in danger for your selfish fun and therefore it's illegal, should be the same with pot IMO.

[Kelly]

Cops would tell you that the reason they stop most that they feel are driving while under the influence are driving under the speed limit, most of these things do make you over cautious...at low levels. Doesn't mean you can't still cause a wreck.

Driving into on coming traffic at 35 m.p.h. or 70 m.p.h., you're gonna have a problem.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'd be fine for use being restricted to a private residence or a designated area if that's what it takes for legalization.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Cops would tell you that the reason they stop most that they feel are driving while under the influence are driving under the speed limit, most of these things do make you over cautious...at low levels. Doesn't mean you can't still cause a wreck.

Driving into on coming traffic at 35 m.p.h. or 70 m.p.h., you're gonna have a problem.
I don't think it's a good idea to drive stoned but it's just not as dangerous as driving drunk. Pretending the two are the same is simply being dishonest.

If it's safer to drive stoned than driving while texting then the penalties should be more lenient for the former. And I believe it is safer to drive stoned than to drive while texting or drunk.

[moraldeficiency]

Now I thought we've already covered this several pages ago. They have been trying to conclusively prove hemp impairs driving function for many years now. While they have found it to impair some functions so far no driving test has shown it conclusively to make you drive worse in any test. As of right now having a cell phone in the car is far more dangerous than driving stoned, as is having someone else in the car or singing along to the radio (all conclusively proven). Now I don't think it's a good idea to drive stoned but it's nowhere near driving drunk or driving while talking on the phone even.

We talked and showed the research on this already in this thread, if only you stoners could remember...

[Ace of Knaves]

Huh? Can you run that by me again, maaaaaan?

[moraldeficiency]

Happy 420 everyone!

A fun article from last year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/420-thoughts-on-pot-vs-al_b_188627.html

As 5:00 p.m. rolls around my interior clock starts chiming. I'll have an ice-cold, bone-dry martini, thank you. Jalapeno olives and a twist. If the occasion calls for it (temperatures in the twenties, a hot political debate on the tube) I may substitute two fingers of Kentucky sour mash. Four-twenty? Doesn't resonate. But with April 20 approaching and Waldos of the world gearing up to celebrate their favorite day of the year, it's not a bad time to consider, yet again, the pluses and minuses of alcohol vs. cannabis.

First, a disclaimer: I am a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, but I don't officially represent the organization in this forum. That said, I can't very well check my affiliation, or beliefs, at the keyboard when I sit down to blog for HuffPost. We at LEAP are current and former cops and other criminal justice practitioners who have witnessed firsthand the futility and manifold injustices of the drug war. Our professional experiences have led us to conclude that the more dangerous an illicit substance--from crack to krank--the greater the justification for its legalization, regulation, and control. It is the prohibition of drugs that leads inexorably to high rates of death, disease, crime, and addiction.

Back to booze vs. pot. How do the effects of these two drugs stack up against specific health and public safety factors?

Alcohol-related traffic accidents claim approximately 14,000 lives each year, down significantly from 20 or 30 years ago (attributed to improved education and enforcement). Figures for THC-related traffic fatalities are elusive, especially since alcohol is almost always present in the blood as well, and since the numbers of "marijuana-only" traffic fatalities are so small. But evidence from studies, including laboratory simulations, feeds the stereotype that those under the influence of canniboids tend to (1) be more aware of their impaired psychomotor skills, and (2) drive well below the speed limit. Those under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be clueless or defiant about their condition, and to speed up and drive recklessly.

Hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur annually. There has never been a single recorded marijuana OD fatality.

According to the American Public Health Association, excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of death in this country. APHA pegs the negative economic impact of extreme drinking at $150 billion a year.

There have been no documented cases of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, nor has pot been scientifically linked to any type of cancer. (Don't trust an advocate's take on this? Try the fair and balanced coverage over at Fox.) Alcohol abuse contributes to a multitude of long-term negative health consequences, notably cirrhosis of the liver and a variety of cancers.

While a small quantity, taken daily, is being touted for its salutary health effects, alcohol is one of the worst drugs one can take for pain management, marijuana one of the best.

Alcohol contributes to acts of violence; marijuana reduces aggression. In approximately three million cases of reported violent crimes last year, the offender had been drinking. This is particularly true in cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and date rape. Marijuana use, in and of itself, is absent from both crime reports and the scientific literature. There is simply no link to be made.

Over the past four years I've asked police officers throughout the U.S. (and in Canada) two questions. When's the last time you had to fight someone under the influence of marijuana? (I'm talking marijuana only, not pot plus a six-pack or a fifth of tequila.) My colleagues pause, they reflect. Their eyes widen as they realize that in their five or fifteen or thirty years on the job they have never had to fight a marijuana user. I then ask: When's the last time you had to fight a drunk? They look at their watches.

All of which begs the question. If one of these two drugs is implicated in dire health effects, high mortality rates, and physical violence--and the other is not--what are we to make of our nation's marijuana laws? Or alcohol laws, for that matter.

Anybody out there want to launch a campaign for the re-prohibition of alcohol? Didn't think so. The answer, of course, is responsible drinking. Marijuana smokers, for their part, have already shown (apart from that little matter known as the law) greater responsibility in their choice of drugs than those of us who choose alcohol.

[Hobodeluxe]

Happy 4/20. here's a funny from a while back
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3ecDYxOkg)

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

marijuana_may_not_impair_driving_ability (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/03/attorney_marijuana_may_not_impair_driving_ability. php)

False. I don't care what that says. It's like saying some alcohol may not impair driving. I've driven under the influence, both weed and alcohol. Not proud of it but most of us were young at one point and dumb. Clearly we all know enough alcohol will affect driving ability and impair judgement.

Marijuana does the same, what I will say for Marijuana is that there were times when I was very in control (or at least felt as I was) and drove just fine I know plenty of friends that were too. But even when I had been smoking for a few years there were some instances when I was far too high to drive.

So I honestly would not say that Marijuana may not impair driving. If it ever became legalized, which I strongly feel it should, it definitely should be a DUI.

On a side note, all drugs should be legalized.

[Ace of Knaves]

Depends on how much you smoke and what you smoke.

A little joint of puff ain't gonna do nothing. A massive joint of high grade skunk is gonna effect you.

But whatever it is, it's no where near as bad as drink driving.

But why should crack and smack and meth and all that be legalized? It'll give stupid people the impression that it will be ok to do them things. There is a lot of stupid people out there. And it's not ok to do them things... it means you are a scum bag.

[The BatDude]

Yeah listen to Master Chief saved up for the Volcano. It'll pay itself when you're getting crazy high with all the thc you be inhaling.

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Depends on how much you smoke and what you smoke.

A little joint of puff ain't gonna do nothing. A massive joint of high grade skunk is gonna effect you.

But whatever it is, it's no where near as bad as drink driving.

But why should crack and smack and meth and all that be legalized? It'll give stupid people the impression that it will be ok to do them things. There is a lot of stupid people out there. And it's not ok to do them things... it means you are a scum bag.


Why not? You're placing judgement just the way that people don't like weed place judgement on you. I'm pretty sure plenty of very successful even famous people have come forward or been caught that used methamphetamines, crack, heroin, ecstasy and so on. They didn't turn into horrible, thieving, pieces of scum like you blanket everyone that does them.

Of course some people will always be deviants and unable to handle what will most likely be their addiction but the same goes for alcohol and weed. It's just that the results and outcomes of abuse or addiction are different.

Legalization of all drugs could also cut down on crime, overpopulated prisons and disease transmission. If your reason for not wanting to legalize all drugs is simply moral values or how you view those people that use them. You need a better argument.

[Ace of Knaves]

Hey, i've munched 100s of pills... they ain't in the same category as smack and crack and meth. Or even coke. I used to be a right coke head, and it was horrible, it changed me. I've got mates now who are still bang on it, and I don't even know em anymore, it changes them.

But pills? I could go to a club or rave, munch a few pills and thats that. End of story.

But coke and crack and smack and all that? People get addicted to them, reliant on them. They can't go a single day without shooting up or snorting some.

Seriously, heroin and crack, stuff like that, ruins lives. They are not recreational drugs you do on a night out or something like pills or weed.

I mean, who goes to a club and shoots up some brown? No one.

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Hey, i've munched 100s of pills... they ain't in the same category as smack and crack and meth. Or even coke. I used to be a right coke head, and it was horrible, it changed me. I've got mates now who are still bang on it, and I don't even know em anymore, it changes them.

But pills? I could go to a club or rave, munch a few pills and thats that. End of story.

But coke and crack and smack and all that? People get addicted to them, reliant on them. They can't go a single day without shooting up or snorting some.

Seriously, heroin and crack, stuff like that, ruins lives. They are not recreational drugs you do on a night out or something like pills or weed.

I mean, who goes to a club and shoots up some brown? No one.

Well at least that is more constructive than just placing judgement. But alcohol is legal and that ruins more lives than any of those drugs, combined. Yes heroin and crack are highly addictive not the same as weed I agree.

But people know smoking cigarettes causes a multitude of illnesses the most devastating being cancer. Yet look how many tens of millions of people smoke still?

I know a smoker and a person that is strung out or a crack head are two different types of people both physically and mentally but if none of them are causing crime, hurting people or destroying anyone else's lives why not legalize all drugs?

If the argument is the lives it takes and the damage it causes alcohol by far effects many many more lives. It's not even close. Not counting the 100,000 give or take direct deaths in the US each year there are another 100,000 alcohol related deaths and that doesn't take into account the families that have to go through having alcoholic spouses or children or siblings that are directly affected by these people and even scared.

Again I understand your point about how devastating the harder drugs are, crack, heroin and so on. But just because they're legalized doesn't mean everyone is going to run out and start shooting up or lighting a crack pipe.

People that are going to do heroin are going to do it regardless, people that smoke crack are going to smoke it regardless. Why not at least try to 1. Educate people about it. 2. Try to reduce prison time for crime less individuals. 3. Regulate it and possibly reduce the transmission of diseases. 4. Make profit from it. 5. Reduce the prison population (slightly).

I understand your viewpoint but I don't think the legalization or at least trial runs in certain areas automatically equals a break down of people or society or a rapid increase of deaths and drug related crimes.

And I know what it can do, I've lost two uncles to heroin. So I do get it, but I don't think it being legal or illegal would have or clearly did not change things for my uncles. People are going to make their choices and decisions themselves, a law is not going to change that for the most part.

I'm not saying it's perfect but the system we have in place now clearly isn't either.

One last thing, even light drugs as Marijuana are addictive. Psychologically people become dependent upon Marijuana. I used to smoke and gave it up, I was just over it. I had plenty of good times and was able to be productive but there were spans in my life when I wasn't productive at all and that is how it has been for most of my friends that are still regular weed smokers. I've only ever met one person that was a regular weed smoker and very productive wit his life and actually amounted to more than just working a dead end job. But even he gave it up after a number of years. I am not giving weed a broad bad label but it has it's downsides for people as well.

So to say that just because Marijuana doesn't turn you into a cracked out, skinny junkie looking for your next hit. Doesn't mean that it can't or won't effect individuals to the point of being very lazy and unmotivated.

[Master Chief]

lol are you kidding? You're actually in favour of legalizing heroin, crank, meth?

Legalizing them would make them easier to access. Some people who would never consider those drugs could probably reconsider because it would become an option that doesn't involve the danger of landing in handcuffs.

Of course people are going to do what they want regardless, but your points are craaazy. There are already good education resources available, and dude, to regulate and profit from the hard s**t is just as ridiculous as a herb still being illegal. Just because alcohol destroys lives and cigarettes expose smokers to 4000 chemicals an inhale doesn't justify adding more s**t to the world just because people already do the illegal things. Legalization of the chemicals is just craazybeans yo, straight up.

I can imagine heading down to pick up a gram of H, and with it comes a pamphlet, lol, instructing (with pictures! *needle not included) the ways to intake along with safety tips and warnings. :D

Pot might make you lazy and unmotivated, but damn, when you reach a point that low you gotta wait to burn your next spliff when you're at a better place in life...

fuggit, all the more reason to burn another. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/LilBrother/Smilies/smokin.gif

The fact that there are few productive marijuana tokers tells me more about people than it does about the green.

[StorminNorman]

lol are you kidding? You're actually in favour of legalizing heroin, crank, meth?

Legalizing them would make them easier to access. Some people who would never consider those drugs could probably reconsider because it would become an option that doesn't involve the danger of landing in handcuffs.

Of course people are going to do what they want regardless, but your points are craaazy. There are already good education resources available, and dude, to regulate and profit from the hard s**t is just as ridiculous as a herb still being illegal. Just because alcohol destroys lives and cigarettes expose smokers to 4000 chemicals an inhale doesn't justify adding more s**t to the world just because people already do the illegal things. Legalization of the chemicals is just craazybeans yo, straight up.

I can imagine heading down to pick up a gram of H, and with it comes a pamphlet, lol, instructing (with pictures! *needle not included) the ways to intake along with safety tips and warnings. :D

Pot might make you lazy and unmotivated, but damn, when you reach a point that low you gotta wait to burn your next spliff when you're at a better place in life...

fuggit, all the more reason to burn another. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/LilBrother/Smilies/smokin.gif

The fact that there are few productive marijuana tokers tells me more about people than it does about the green.

But making the stuff illegal doesn't do anything to keep it from being used, and in high amounts. If anyone wants coke, they can get coke. By making it illegal, you are not preventing it's existence but are enabling criminals from profiting from it.

Crime and gangs are dependent upon government intervention to exist.

[Master Chief]

Cool, so the solution is to legally regulate every harmful substance to stop criminals from making money. Hawt. :cool: Hey, it worked with alcohol, why not!

[Majic Walrus]

Exactly. Prohibition of alcohol did the same thing that prohibition of marijuana did the problem is that the alcohol prohibition did more fast enough to get noticed. Marijuana prohibition has had the same affect but over a longer time period.

Certain drugs I feel can still be illegal. Drugs like PCP and meth make such drastic changes in a personality that more often than not it is out of their control. PCP users have been known to break every bone in their arm punching through car windshields and not even miss a beat. These are first time users. Also drugs like Ecstasy and inhalants are easy to OD on quickly and that is also bad.

But we would benefit greatly from making illicit substances like marijuana legal and therefore legally regulated.

[chaseter]

Wait wait wait...some people actually want to legalize meth? WTF!?

[Master Chief]

Exactly. Prohibition of alcohol did the same thing that prohibition of marijuana did the problem is that the alcohol prohibition did more fast enough to get noticed. Marijuana prohibition has had the same affect but over a longer time period.

Certain drugs I feel can still be illegal. Drugs like PCP and meth make such drastic changes in a personality that more often than not it is out of their control. PCP users have been known to break every bone in their arm punching through car windshields and not even miss a beat. These are first time users. Also drugs like Ecstasy and inhalants are easy to OD on quickly and that is also bad.

But we would benefit greatly from making illicit substances like marijuana legal and therefore legally regulated.

Yup, that's what I'm thinkin. Alcohol didn't really have anything like "refer madness" to overcome though lol, and considering it's been illegal for only a few decades... not too shabby. :cool:

"Why not legalize everything?" Hahah, that would be nuuuts.

[Majic Walrus]

A lot of people are okay with legalizing everything on the idea of "what you do with your body is up to you", but that's a little extreme even for me.

[StorminNorman]

Wait wait wait...some people actually want to legalize meth? WTF!?

What does making it illegal do? Besides allowing criminals to profit off the sales? Meth is something that can be made from household cleaners - you think it's going to go away if we write a law against it?

The way to stop Meth is by showing what Meth is and not pretending it doesn't exist. That's the way all drugs are. People don't not do hard drugs because of legality - everyone on this board has knowingly broken a law - people don't do it because it's ****in Meth. That won't change if it's legal.

[StorminNorman]

A lot of people are okay with legalizing everything on the idea of "what you do with your body is up to you", but that's a little extreme even for me.

It's less extreme and more idealistic. The argument against hard drug laws is the exact same as the argument against the criminalization of prostitution, weed, or any other vice. I don't understand how an argument can be valid for certain vices, and not others.

[Marx]

Just a reminder...

This thread is meant for the discussion of legalizing marijuana (and other drugs,) it is not a 'how to' guide. If you want to discuss 'how to'...keep it in PMs. Thanks!

[chaseter]

What does making it illegal do? Besides allowing criminals to profit off the sales? Meth is something that can be made from household cleaners - you think it's going to go away if we write a law against it?

The way to stop Meth is by showing what Meth is and not pretending it doesn't exist. That's the way all drugs are. People don't not do hard drugs because of legality - everyone on this board has knowingly broken a law - people don't do it because it's ****in Meth. That won't change if it's legal.

That is bull. If you make meth legal, the amount of meth users would rise. If you make gambling legal at age 16, the amount of gamblers would rise. If you make tobacco legal at age 12, the amount of tobacco users would rise.

Making something illegal doesn't stop its usage, but making it legal would dramatically increase its usage.

People know what cigarettes can do to their body...does that stop them?

Why do you think people started doing hard drugs in the first place? Once on it, you are hooked. So if you can buy it at the corner store now because it is legal, you honestly think the usage would not rise:huh::dry:

[Majic Walrus]

It's less extreme and more idealistic. The argument against hard drug laws is the exact same as the argument against the criminalization of prostitution, weed, or any other vice. I don't understand how an argument can be valid for certain vices, and not others.

I disagree. The argument is that what you do with your body is your business, however if you use a drug that endangers other people on a regular basis or is extremely dangerous to have. If someone uses PCP they become a danger to those around them and therefore this drug should be prohibited. The same is true for lots of drugs, but not all.

That is bull. If you make meth legal, the amount of meth users would rise. If you make gambling legal at age 16, the amount of gamblers would rise. If you make tobacco legal at age 12, the amount of tobacco users would rise.

Making something illegal doesn't stop its usage, but making it legal would dramatically increase its usage.

People know what cigarettes can do to their body...does that stop them?

Why do you think people started doing hard drugs in the first place? Once on it, you are hooked. So if you can buy it at the corner store now because it is legal, you honestly think the usage would not rise:huh::dry:

I don't think that it would. Making something illegal doesn't decrease it's usage. In fact since marijuana has been made illegal the usage has increased drastically. Alcohol consumption didn't increase during prohibition.

How many smokers do you know waited until they turned 18, or drinkers that waited until they turned 21?

[chaseter]

I didn't say making something illegal would decrease its usage. The people that drank booze still drank booze during prohibition. But allowing it to be widely accessible will allow more people to have access to it and therefore increase its usage.

Right now it is illegal for anyone under 21 to gamble. The people that gamble are either addicted or know the risk. If you lower that to 16, I guarantee that you would see a dramatic increase of gamblers at casinos. The people that smoke cigarettes are either addicted or know the risk. If you lower the age to be able to buy tobacco to 16, I guarantee that you would see an increase of cigarette sales. Meth is the same thing.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Exactly. Prohibition of alcohol did the same thing that prohibition of marijuana did the problem is that the alcohol prohibition did more fast enough to get noticed. Marijuana prohibition has had the same affect but over a longer time period.

Certain drugs I feel can still be illegal. Drugs like PCP and meth make such drastic changes in a personality that more often than not it is out of their control. PCP users have been known to break every bone in their arm punching through car windshields and not even miss a beat. These are first time users. Also drugs like Ecstasy and inhalants are easy to OD on quickly and that is also bad.

But we would benefit greatly from making illicit substances like marijuana legal and therefore legally regulated.
How many people OD on ecstasy?

It's not as dangerous as meth or heroin.

[Majic Walrus]

I didn't say making something illegal would decrease its usage. The people that drank booze still drank booze during prohibition. But allowing it to be widely accessible will allow more people to have access to it and therefore increase its usage.

Right now it is illegal for anyone under 21 to gamble. The people that gamble are either addicted or know the risk. If you lower that to 16, I guarantee that you would see a dramatic increase of gamblers at casinos. The people that smoke cigarettes are either addicted or know the risk. If you lower the age to be able to buy tobacco to 16, I guarantee that you would see an increase of cigarette sales. Meth is the same thing.

Based on what?

How many people OD on ecstasy?

It's not as dangerous as meth or heroin.

Lots. The difference between X and heroin or meth is that X can kill you the first time you use it.

[Kelly]

Cocaine is the same....you can have a drop in tolerance with no warning. Some of this stuff is scary, scary stuff.

[chaseter]

Based on common sense??? Lowering the drinking age to 16 will make alcohol sales increase. Do you really think it wouldn't?

[Kelly]

Cocaine is the same....you can have a drop in tolerance with no warning. Some of this stuff is scary, scary stuff.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah but not many people OD on ecstacy.

If anything they die of over-heating from not drinking enough water.

[StorminNorman]

That is bull. If you make meth legal, the amount of meth users would rise. If you make gambling legal at age 16, the amount of gamblers would rise. If you make tobacco legal at age 12, the amount of tobacco users would rise.

Making something illegal doesn't stop its usage, but making it legal would dramatically increase its usage.

People know what cigarettes can do to their body...does that stop them?

Why do you think people started doing hard drugs in the first place? Once on it, you are hooked. So if you can buy it at the corner store now because it is legal, you honestly think the usage would not rise:huh::dry:

You can't compare meth to gambling or tobacco.

[StorminNorman]

I disagree. The argument is that what you do with your body is your business, however if you use a drug that endangers other people on a regular basis or is extremely dangerous to have. If someone uses PCP they become a danger to those around them and therefore this drug should be prohibited. The same is true for lots of drugs, but not all.

And you should be held responsible for all of your actions while on drugs. If someone goes on PCP and assaults people, he should be arrested for assault. The crime, in that case, is not PCP.

[Majic Walrus]

Yeah but not many people OD on ecstacy.

If anything they die of over-heating from not drinking enough water.

Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't take the X.

And you should be held responsible for all of your actions while on drugs. If someone goes on PCP and assaults people, he should be arrested for assault. The crime, in that case, is not PCP.

Agreed, but I think that PCP shows it has the actual ability to cause someone to commit crimes. Although I totally understand your point.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't take the X.



only a handful of people die from ecstasy if any at all.

Do you know how many people a year die from alcohol poisoning? 1300

Not to mention deaths from drunk driving which is in the tens of thousands.

But I'm sure you don't advocate making alcohol illegal. Why the double standard?

[Ace of Knaves]

What does making it illegal do? Besides allowing criminals to profit off the sales? Meth is something that can be made from household cleaners - you think it's going to go away if we write a law against it?

The way to stop Meth is by showing what Meth is and not pretending it doesn't exist. That's the way all drugs are. People don't not do hard drugs because of legality - everyone on this board has knowingly broken a law - people don't do it because it's ****in Meth. That won't change if it's legal.

No, but by making it legal it would effect some peoples decisions. Some people would be like "hey meths legal now, might as well try it out". Especially with younger people.

Over here in England there is some new drug called MCat or Dolly or Meow. Up until the other week it was legal. And 27 people died of ODs. Because it was legal people assumed it wasn't dangerous and that there is nothing wrong with it. That is totally not the case. Making these harsher drugs legal will make naive, younger people think it's ok. That's just the way it is.

And that's just wrong. Meth, crack, heroin... they are on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEVEL than any other drugs.

You people who support the idea of legalizing heroin, crack and meth... i doubt you have had any personal experience with the stuff. Have you ever seen someone strung out round a house or in an alley with a needle hanging out of their arm?

Has a crack head ever pulled a blade on you?

Have you tried to hold a conversation with someone cracked out of their eyeballs in a pub?

By legalizing the actual drug, it won't make the people who do the drug any nicer or help them out in anyway. It'll just make it easier for them to get hold of it, thusly increase the amount that they take it, thusly increase the chance of them dying from an OD.

Things like weed, pills... they are recreational drugs in most cases.

Things like crack and heroin? They are not recreational. People who get hooked to them do them just to wake up in the morning, like having a cup of coffee.

The same can be said of alcoholics sure... but an alcoholic isn't prone to robbing people for their next fix. Or ODing off a single hit.

Alcohol and cigerettes are harmful, but no where near the level of heroin and crack etc.

Legalizing will take away the money of the drug dealers. But in the process it's basically giving people the ok to become ****ing wrong'uns and end up killing themselves.

Think about it, is it worth it? Legalizing heroin and crack to shrink a drug dealers incoming and at the same time giving naive people the impression that it is ok to do them things and also giving people who are already smack heads or crack heads some kind of justification and free pass?

[MessiahDecoy123]

I believe people should be free to choose any drug.

However addiction takes away your ability to choose therefore highly addictive drugs should remain illegal.

[MessiahDecoy123]

For every million people who use ecstasy only 6 die.

It's extremely safe.

It would be better to educate people about moderate and safe use than throw people in jail for possessing it.

[chaseter]

You can't compare meth to gambling or tobacco.

You can't compare meth to marijuana. One is completely safe and one is highly addictive and highly detrimental to one's health.

[Master Chief]

only a handful of people die from ecstasy if any at all.

Do you know how many people a year die from alcohol poisoning? 1300

Not to mention deaths from drunk driving which is in the tens of thousands.

But I'm sure you don't advocate making alcohol illegal. Why the double standard?

SWIM dropped 2 capsules of pure MDMA, the hangover felt like his brain was wrung dry and he didn't feel the same for a week.

Whereas I can drink half a bottle of Bacardi 151 and wake up in my vomit feeling like s**t until I get re-hydrated.

Just because alcohol is legal and causes harm isn't a good argument for legalizing chemicals that can harm. It may put a stop to trafficking and offer up a pure product compared to the hustlers passing speed off as E and whatnot, but the ease of access will open more people up to experiencing things they would otherwise choose not to.

I'm all for people experiencing the joys that drugs like MDMA and LSD can bring, but when something is legalized more minds are open to the idea, and call me a misanthropist but when you give people a free pass stupidity overcomes the masses. I'm just against it being easily accessible.

For every million people who use ecstasy only 6 die.

It's extremely safe.

It would be better to educate people about moderate and safe use than throw people in jail for possessing it.

lol where the hell did you get that statistic? :awesome:

Anyway yeah, by all means educate. It's illegal for anyone under 21 to drink in Americas, but teenagers are still educated about it. Do the same for drugs. And as for jail, more often than not it's dealers getting busted.

[Ace of Knaves]

Pills ain't that dangerous though... unless you take the "drink water" as "drink litres and litres and litres of water" and drown your body. Or unless you drop like, 20 pills. Or get them off some complete stranger in a club/rave.

In those cases though the person is an idiot if they do those things.

[mrvlknight21]

For every million people who use ecstasy only 6 die.

It's extremely safe.

It would be better to educate people about moderate and safe use than throw people in jail for possessing it.

6 in 1 million...??? Where can I find this stat?

And that 2nd line "it's extremely safe" is just ridiculous.

[The BatDude]

As for Ecstasy just don't over heat and you'll be good.... way too good lol

[Majic Walrus]

6 in 1 million...??? Where can I find this stat?

And that 2nd line "it's extremely safe" is just ridiculous.

I second the hell out of this. I've seen too many people rushed to the hospital to believe that's true.

only a handful of people die from ecstasy if any at all.

Do you know how many people a year die from alcohol poisoning? 1300

Not to mention deaths from drunk driving which is in the tens of thousands.

But I'm sure you don't advocate making alcohol illegal. Why the double standard?

Drunk driving should be illegal. But the difference is here: 1 X tablet can kill you. 1 shot of Jameson won't. The dangerous nature of Ecstasy is FAR greater than the dangers associated with moderate alcohol consumption.

For drugs like meth, PCP, Ecstasy, and a few others there is no such thing as moderation.

[BlackLantern]

I think anything "chemically produced" should remain illegal....cocaine, meth, ectasy, crack, etc

[Ace of Knaves]

I second the hell out of this. I've seen too many people rushed to the hospital to believe that's true.



Drunk driving should be illegal. But the difference is here: 1 X tablet can kill you. 1 shot of Jameson won't. The dangerous nature of Ecstasy is FAR greater than the dangers associated with moderate alcohol consumption.

For drugs like meth, PCP, Ecstasy, and a few others there is no such thing as moderation.

Not at all. 1 x cannot kill you... unless you are either allergic to MDMA itself, which means you are just plain unlucky... and an extremely, extremely rare case. Or you have been irresponsible and drowned your body with water instead of sipping it normally.

I've been to dozens of raves. I've been with literally THOUSANDS of people on x. And guess what? Not one single person died.

****, the last rave i went to i did 11 pills and the worst that happened was me having a banging hang over the next day.

I'm not saying x should be legal, but it is not on the same level as crack, heroin and meth. That's a fact. Not just my opinion, because the British government is seriously considering downgrading it to class B under scientific advice.

There has been around 200 deaths caused by ecstacy in the UK... since 1995.

So what's that? 200 deaths out of hmmm millions and millions of uses?

The BBC did a survey and ecstacy is ranked 18th out of 20 drugs. 1 being the most dangerous. The facts speak for themselves.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I second the hell out of this. I've seen too many people rushed to the hospital to believe that's true.



Drunk driving should be illegal. But the difference is here: 1 X tablet can kill you. 1 shot of Jameson won't. The dangerous nature of Ecstasy is FAR greater than the dangers associated with moderate alcohol consumption.

For drugs like meth, PCP, Ecstasy, and a few others there is no such thing as moderation.
You're terribly misinformed.

Look at the deaths related to ecstacy (50 per million) versus alcohol (1,000 per million).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/survey/

If ecstasy kills only 50 people for every million people and alcohol kills 1,000 per million how can you say alcohol is safer?

and the ecstasy deaths are inflated because people are often told they're getting ecstacy when it's really something else.

Unlike alcohol, ecstacy is not physically addictive. Ecstacy is psychologically addictive like weed. So you should group alcohol in with meth, cocaine, and heroin. Not ecstacy.

And do you have a proof that one pill of ecstacy can kill you?

[bell110]

Ok, lets say we legalize everything from X to heroin. How do we go about distribution? Should it be privatized or strictly within the governments control? Should they be sold in any place where you can buy alcohol, or special government run facilities? A lot of people think government should stay out of things because things run better by privatization. Can you imagine companies running ads that glamorize meth and heroin like they glamorize cigarette, alcohol, and gambling?

[Majic Walrus]

Not at all. 1 x cannot kill you... unless you are either allergic to MDMA itself, which means you are just plain unlucky... and an extremely, extremely rare case. Or you have been irresponsible and drowned your body with water instead of sipping it normally.

I've been to dozens of raves. I've been with literally THOUSANDS of people on x. And guess what? Not one single person died.

****, the last rave i went to i did 11 pills and the worst that happened was me having a banging hang over the next day.

I'm not saying x should be legal, but it is not on the same level as crack, heroin and meth. That's a fact. Not just my opinion, because the British government is seriously considering downgrading it to class B under scientific advice.

There has been around 200 deaths caused by ecstacy in the UK... since 1995.

So what's that? 200 deaths out of hmmm millions and millions of uses?

The BBC did a survey and ecstacy is ranked 18th out of 20 drugs. 1 being the most dangerous. The facts speak for themselves.

So here's the thing about X. It's unpredictable nature causes lots of side effects. Some of these side effects are:



Nausea
Hallucinations
Chills & sweating
Increased body temp
Tremors
Muscle cramping
Blurred vision

Let's just talk about one of these. Increased body temperature.

As the body starts to overheat, small clots form in the bloodstream, leading to a condition called Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC). The clots cause a depletion of the blood's essential coagulation agent, which is normally used to stem internal bleeding from the hundreds of tiny cuts constantly present in body and brain tissue due to damage caused in the day-to-day running of the body. A depletion of coagulation agent can be extremely dangerous. If bleeding occurs in the brain, for example, it can lead to a stroke. It's also possible to bleed to death. What's more, this whole process can occur in just a few hours.

Source: http://www.acde.org/common/ecstasy.htm

You're terribly misinformed.

Look at the deaths related to ecstacy (50 per million) versus alcohol (1,000 per million).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/survey/

If ecstasy kills only 50 people for every million people and alcohol kills 1,000 per million how can you say alcohol is safer?

and the ecstasy deaths are inflated because people are often told they're getting ecstacy when it's really something else.

Unlike alcohol, ecstacy is not physically addictive. Ecstacy is psychologically addictive like weed. So you should group alcohol in with meth, cocaine, and heroin. Not ecstacy.

And do you have a proof that one pill of ecstacy can kill you?

Alcohol isn't safe. It's dangerous. However the dangerous associated with alcohol are much much different. Alcohol related deaths can and often are not from the usage of the drug itself but from the over usage of the drug leading to poor choices like driving. Also alcohol related deaths can come from years and years of EXCESSIVE alcohol usage. Things like heart disease, liver disease, and kidney disease all can cause death and be caused by alcohol but these are all long term effects. Ecstasy's death-dealing abilities are based on the wide-range of side effects that can occur and it's powerful experience. The fact that ONE X tablet can kill you is also pretty powerful. Given the chance to use and abuse alcohol for a long time someone is making a consistent life decision which may lead to their death. Meanwhile X users may not have that chance. In addition you need to look at who is using alcohol and who is using X. How many of those alcohol related deaths were overdoses compared to the number of ecstasy overdoses? How many people were long term users?

Here's some source for that: http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDoc1&ID=231

This designer drug is usually taken at "house parties" and may cause severe complications, sometimes leading to death, even when taken in relatively small units (1 or 2 tablets). Up to now, only a few cases of
survival after ingestion of an overdose of Ecstasy have been described. In most cases the users developed hyperthermia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, rhabdomyolysis, and renal failure.

This is from a case study in the Journal of Toxicology. The study goes on to show a man who took a **** lot of X who lived, so it's possible to take excessive amounts of MDMA and not die however it is rare as evidenced above.

Also, I wasn't grouping drugs based on their addictive qualities. Nicotine is highly addictive and highly deadly as well, I don't think we should ban it. There are several reason for that. I was not suggesting that we ban drugs solely based on the death per user ratio. That would be nonsense math. Driving, flying, swimming, and taking showers can all be lethal. We don't need to ban them.

What I was suggesting is that drugs that have shown to have a variety of complicated and dangerous side effects that can easily lead to death and/or that endanger others readily should be banned. This is why I included drugs like PCP. The statistical analysis of the number of UK deaths per number of users is irrelevant to the discussion because the numbers are difficult to determine. I'm not sure how the sources mentioned were able to determine a hard (even soft) number of X users. On the attached video however there were some expert opinions, they differed. Some said it's a dumb question of which is deadlier, some said X was, some said alcohol was. The problem is that the perimeter's of the question are not defined well.

[Majic Walrus]

Ok, lets say we legalize everything from X to heroin. How do we go about distribution? Should it be privatized or strictly within the governments control? Should they be sold in any place where you can buy alcohol, or special government run facilities? A lot of people think government should stay out of things because things run better by privatization. Can you imagine companies running ads that glamorize meth and heroin like they glamorize cigarette, alcohol, and gambling?

I think I should clarify legalization by saying decriminalization. But in any case even if the private sector did distribute "hard" drugs they would still have to answer to FDA authority. This can included marketing strategies (notice how cigarettes don't get called "Lights" anymore and how you don't see commercials for cigarettes or Joe Camel anymore?) Also, the biggest benefit is that by allowing the FDA to control these things you'd have far fewer cases of bad cuts, poor dosing estimates, and ****** chemists.

A lot of drug users that die from a drug, even X, don't die from the ingredient in the drug that causes the high; many times they die of a reaction to whatever the dealer put in the drug that the customer wasn't intending to buy.

[Ace of Knaves]

double

[Ace of Knaves]

Ecstacy is not as dangerous as heroin, cocaine, meth etc. That's just plain facts Walrus.

The BBC study found ecstacy to be number 18 on a list of 20 drugs. Number 1 being the most dangerous.

There has been 200 reported deaths from taking ecstacy in the UK... since 1995. So what is that? 200 deaths out of about, i dunno, a billion cases of usage?

You don't need to list the effects of ecstacy, i have more experience with the stuff than you or probably anyone on this sight. And i'm talking first hand experience.

There is risks with ecstacy sure... but there are risks with hamburgers if you are irresponsible. There is a risk with everything we do. But as long as you are responsible, the risk is greatly reduced or even completely avoided.

[Hobodeluxe]

Legalize it. Take the organized crime element out of it. Tax it. regulate it. Let's quit putting people in jail for having an oz of grass on them. it costs the taxpayers too much to incarcerate non violent offenders.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Alcohol isn't safe. It's dangerous. However the dangerous associated with alcohol are much much different. Alcohol related deaths can and often are not from the usage of the drug itself but from the over usage of the drug leading to poor choices like driving. Also alcohol related deaths can come from years and years of EXCESSIVE alcohol usage. Things like heart disease, liver disease, and kidney disease all can cause death and be caused by alcohol but these are all long term effects. Ecstasy's death-dealing abilities are based on the wide-range of side effects that can occur and it's powerful experience. The fact that ONE X tablet can kill you is also pretty powerful. Given the chance to use and abuse alcohol for a long time someone is making a consistent life decision which may lead to their death. Meanwhile X users may not have that chance. In addition you need to look at who is using alcohol and who is using X. How many of those alcohol related deaths were overdoses compared to the number of ecstasy overdoses? How many people were long term users?

Here's some source for that: http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDoc1&ID=231

This designer drug is usually taken at "house parties" and may cause severe complications, sometimes leading to death, even when taken in relatively small units (1 or 2 tablets). Up to now, only a few cases of
survival after ingestion of an overdose of Ecstasy have been described. In most cases the users developed hyperthermia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, rhabdomyolysis, and renal failure.

This is from a case study in the Journal of Toxicology. The study goes on to show a man who took a **** lot of X who lived, so it's possible to take excessive amounts of MDMA and not die however it is rare as evidenced above.

Also, I wasn't grouping drugs based on their addictive qualities. Nicotine is highly addictive and highly deadly as well, I don't think we should ban it. There are several reason for that. I was not suggesting that we ban drugs solely based on the death per user ratio. That would be nonsense math. Driving, flying, swimming, and taking showers can all be lethal. We don't need to ban them.

What I was suggesting is that drugs that have shown to have a variety of complicated and dangerous side effects that can easily lead to death and/or that endanger others readily should be banned. This is why I included drugs like PCP. The statistical analysis of the number of UK deaths per number of users is irrelevant to the discussion because the numbers are difficult to determine. I'm not sure how the sources mentioned were able to determine a hard (even soft) number of X users. On the attached video however there were some expert opinions, they differed. Some said it's a dumb question of which is deadlier, some said X was, some said alcohol was. The problem is that the perimeter's of the question are not defined well.
That study doesn't say how often someone dies from a single ecstacy pill, if the pill had been tainted with other drugs, or what medically caused the death. For all we know a single ecstacy pill could've killed a handful of people out of literally millions of users and those pills could've been tainted with other drugs.

But I do think the mortality rate is more important especially when there's such a huge difference. Alcohol causes more deaths per user. Alot more. Do those deaths count less because they resulted from long term use or because a car was involved. No, because those people would be alive without alcohol.

If flying and driving killed one out of every ten users of course they would be banned. Just because we allow driving and flying doesn't mean mortality rates don't play a factor.

If ecstacy causes far fewer deaths per user than legal drugs, it's a good case for changing the legal status. You probably ruin more lives by allowing criminal drug dealers to control 100% of distribution of a popular drug.

[Ace of Knaves]

double

[Ace of Knaves]

I've taken 11 x pills in one night before.

If i took 11 co codemol's i'd be dead. Simple as that.

[The BatDude]

I've taken 11 x pills in one night before.

If i took 11 co codemol's i'd be dead. Simple as that.
Damn man you must have been Rollin' Balls that night.

[Kelly]

Guys, this thread is about the legalization of these drugs and the impact. We really do not need to know the extent of your drug use.

The taking of illegal drugs does not make anyone an expert on those drugs, and using it as such is pretty silly....so lets get back to the discussion, and leave the drug use stories to a conversation between you and your buddies at your next party.

[StorminNorman]

You can't compare meth to marijuana. One is completely safe and one is highly addictive and highly detrimental to one's health.

I am not comparing the substance of marijuana to the substance of meth, I am comparing the logic behind legalizing marijuana (or alcohol, or prostitution, or any other vice) to the logic of legalizing meth.

The fact that it's detrimental to one's health does not mean it should be illegal. It's not the job of the government to force people to only play with safe toys.

The fact is you can't logically pick and choose which vices to legalize without contradicting yourself logically.

[Kelly]

Guys, this thread is about the legalization of these drugs and the impact. We really do not need to know the extent of your drug use.

The taking of illegal drugs does not make anyone an expert on those drugs, and using it as such is pretty silly....so lets get back to the discussion, and leave the drug use stories to a conversation between you and your buddies at your next party.

[Ace of Knaves]

Guys, this thread is about the legalization of these drugs and the impact. We really do not need to know the extent of your drug use.

The taking of illegal drugs does not make anyone an expert on those drugs, and using it as such is pretty silly....so lets get back to the discussion, and leave the drug use stories to a conversation between you and your buddies at your next party.

I was using it as an example. Using my experiences to say that ecstacy is not on the same level as heroin... because it isn't.

And that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of scientists too.

It's not me bragging. And i'm not ashamed of it either. To me it means literally nothing.

Real life experiences make you more of an expert than someone sitting in an armchair watching the news or reading papers.

[Kelly]

I was using it as an example. Using my experiences to say that ecstacy is not on the same level as heroin... because it isn't.

And that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of scientists too.

It's not me bragging. And i'm not ashamed of it either. To me it means literally nothing.

Real life experiences make you more of an expert than someone sitting in an armchair watching the news or reading papers.

Then find scientific data to back it up, as a way to show that ecstasy like marijuana should be legalized....

That way it doesn't come off as....."hey dude, I smoke that **** all the time, and nuttin' happens..." :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

No, but by making it legal it would effect some peoples decisions. Some people would be like "hey meths legal now, might as well try it out". Especially with younger people.

Over here in England there is some new drug called MCat or Dolly or Meow. Up until the other week it was legal. And 27 people died of ODs. Because it was legal people assumed it wasn't dangerous and that there is nothing wrong with it. That is totally not the case. Making these harsher drugs legal will make naive, younger people think it's ok. That's just the way it is.

That's because in the system we currently have, and in Europe especially, we are told to trust the government and turn off our brain - I want a system where we turn off government regulation and turn on our brain.

If we live in a country where the government is restrained to perform only the duties it should (i.e. protecting your individual rights), then the people themselves would be more responsible.

And that's just wrong. Meth, crack, heroin... they are on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEVEL than any other drugs.

You people who support the idea of legalizing heroin, crack and meth... i doubt you have had any personal experience with the stuff. Have you ever seen someone strung out round a house or in an alley with a needle hanging out of their arm?

Yes.

Has a crack head ever pulled a blade on you?

Yes.

Have you tried to hold a conversation with someone cracked out of their eyeballs in a pub?

YEs.

By legalizing the actual drug, it won't make the people who do the drug any nicer or help them out in anyway. It'll just make it easier for them to get hold of it, thusly increase the amount that they take it, thusly increase the chance of them dying from an OD.

It would help them out because they wouldn't have to resort to black markets to buy their drugs - that means safer drugs (for those drugs that are caught). Furthermore, it benefits those who AREN'T on the drug by adding more government revenue.

Things like weed, pills... they are recreational drugs in most cases.

Things like crack and heroin? They are not recreational. People who get hooked to them do them just to wake up in the morning, like having a cup of coffee.

The same can be said of alcoholics sure... but an alcoholic isn't prone to robbing people for their next fix. Or ODing off a single hit.

The purpose of government is not to prevent people from killing themselves.

Legalizing will take away the money of the drug dealers. But in the process it's basically giving people the ok to become ****ing wrong'uns and end up killing themselves.

People SHOULD have the legal ability to become ****ing wrong'uns that end up killing themselves.

Think about it, is it worth it? Legalizing heroin and crack to shrink a drug dealers incoming and at the same time giving naive people the impression that it is ok to do them things and also giving people who are already smack heads or crack heads some kind of justification and free pass?

You are makign a huge assumption in the naivety of people - your entire argument based upon a completely flawed piece of logic.

[StorminNorman]

Ok, lets say we legalize everything from X to heroin. How do we go about distribution? Should it be privatized or strictly within the governments control? Should they be sold in any place where you can buy alcohol, or special government run facilities? A lot of people think government should stay out of things because things run better by privatization. Can you imagine companies running ads that glamorize meth and heroin like they glamorize cigarette, alcohol, and gambling?

Private, and and the option to sell should be up to shop keepers - there perhaps should be a license preventing anyone that wants to sell these drugs be free of these drugs.

As far as companies running ads that glamorize meth, I doubt any media outlet would allow such ads. Not every company that wants to advertize can.

[Ace of Knaves]

How is it flawed? People are stupid. A lot of people are stupid.

I've seen it myself with this MCat stuff. Just because it was legal, people were doing it left right and centre. It turns out, MCat is actually more dangerous than coke and ecstacy.

Now that it has been made illegal, there has been no ODs and the usage of it has dropped.

Simple facts.

You say it's not the governments job to keep it's people safe? WTF? What the **** does the government exist for then? The government is supposed to protect it's citizens.

[Carcharodon]

If we live in a country where the government is restrained to perform only the duties it should (i.e. protecting your individual rights), then the people themselves would be more responsible. LOL! This is cute.

[Majic Walrus]

Ecstacy is not as dangerous as heroin, cocaine, meth etc. That's just plain facts Walrus.

The BBC study found ecstacy to be number 18 on a list of 20 drugs. Number 1 being the most dangerous.

There has been 200 reported deaths from taking ecstacy in the UK... since 1995. So what is that? 200 deaths out of about, i dunno, a billion cases of usage?

There is risks with ecstacy sure... but there are risks with hamburgers if you are irresponsible. There is a risk with everything we do. But as long as you are responsible, the risk is greatly reduced or even completely avoided.

That "study" was based on a poll. Hardly science.

I would agree that there are risks and responsibility plays a part. However there is a certain risk which we are no longer willing to accept.

That study doesn't say how often someone dies from a single ecstacy pill, if the pill had been tainted with other drugs, or what medically caused the death. For all we know a single ecstacy pill could've killed a handful of people out of literally millions of users and those pills could've been tainted with other drugs.

But you asked for evidence that a single X tablet can kill and the Journal of Toxicology stated it in so many words.


But I do think the mortality rate is more important especially when there's such a huge difference. Alcohol causes more deaths per user. Alot more. Do those deaths count less because they resulted from long term use or because a car was involved. No, because those people would be alive without alcohol.

Complete speculation. We have no idea if they would have been alive without using alcohol. This is my point.


If flying and driving killed one out of every ten users of course they would be banned. Just because we allow driving and flying doesn't mean mortality rates don't play a factor.

If ecstacy causes far fewer deaths per user than legal drugs, it's a good case for changing the legal status. You probably ruin more lives by allowing criminal drug dealers to control 100% of distribution of a popular drug.

Well I agree that allowing criminal drug dealers to distribute popular drugs does ruin lives. :word:

[Ace of Knaves]

The study wasn't based on a poll. It was a study done by scientists.

Why do you think ecstacy is going to be downgraded from class A to class B? Because it has been scientifically proven to be less dangerous than class A drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth etc)

[katie_girl09]

I'm for decriminalization.

[StorminNorman]

How is it flawed? People are stupid. A lot of people are stupid.

I've seen it myself with this MCat stuff. Just because it was legal, people were doing it left right and centre. It turns out, MCat is actually more dangerous than coke and ecstacy.

Now that it has been made illegal, there has been no ODs and the usage of it has dropped.

Simple facts.

You say it's not the governments job to keep it's people safe? WTF? What the **** does the government exist for then? The government is supposed to protect it's citizens.

It's not the government job to keep people safe from the themselves. It's the government's job to protect people from other people - and from government.

LOL! This is cute.

In the same way that 2+2=4 is cute, I agree.

The simple reality is that if you live in an environment where you are told that everything you buy has been approved by the government, reputation doesn't matter.

If you live in an environment where there is no such approval, reputation is king.

Before you say "what about those that pick bad companies!?!" - they are still victims in today's world. In spite of regulations AGAINST harmful chemicals, like lead, we still find lead in toys. We still find bad meat. We find all of the bad things that are suppose to be removed by government regulation.

[Addendum]

And I have no problem with someone dying because they snorted some cocaine mixed with whatever.

[bell110]

I think I should clarify legalization by saying decriminalization. But in any case even if the private sector did distribute "hard" drugs they would still have to answer to FDA authority. This can included marketing strategies (notice how cigarettes don't get called "Lights" anymore and how you don't see commercials for cigarettes or Joe Camel anymore?) Also, the biggest benefit is that by allowing the FDA to control these things you'd have far fewer cases of bad cuts, poor dosing estimates, and ****** chemists.

A lot of drug users that die from a drug, even X, don't die from the ingredient in the drug that causes the high; many times they die of a reaction to whatever the dealer put in the drug that the customer wasn't intending to buy.

I'm just throwing legalization out there as a philisophical question. I'm all for people putting anything they want in there body, but legalizing hard drugs seems very iffy to me.

You are makign a huge assumption in the naivety of people - your entire argument based upon a completely flawed piece of logic.

Some teenagers still think the pullout method is a good form of birth control. Face it, some people are very naive.

Private, and and the option to sell should be up to shop keepers - there perhaps should be a license preventing anyone that wants to sell these drugs be free of these drugs.

As far as companies running ads that glamorize meth, I doubt any media outlet would allow such ads. Not every company that wants to advertize can.

Don't underestimate the power of money. If the price is right, the media will run the ads. And the only reason cigarette can't advertise on TV is because the government stepped in.

[Majic Walrus]

I'm just throwing legalization out there as a philisophical question. I'm all for people putting anything they want in there body, but legalizing hard drugs seems very iffy to me.

Philosophically I have no problems with anyone doing any drug really, but I share your concerns. Which is why I propose the decriminalization of substances that are already "not so bad".



Some teenagers still think the pullout method is a good form of birth control. Face it, some people are very naive.

So? It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to make their choices for them.


Don't underestimate the power of money. If the price is right, the media will run the ads. And the only reason cigarette can't advertise on TV is because the government stepped in.

:awesome:

As if the government wouldn't stop the commercials for cocaine?

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

And I have no problem with someone dying because they snorted some cocaine mixed with whatever.

Agreed to say that it is sad is just part of a natural human emotional response. But, that is also the problem when humans look at issues they have a hard time agreeing upon. They look at it emotionally, not logically.

I've had two uncles die overdosing on heroin, but what I feel/felt emotionally still does not change that logically it makes no sense to throw a person who buys heroin or crack in jail simple for the purchase or use of it.

Again I am not against people at all being thrown in jail for committing crimes while under the influence. If some drugs are truly too dangerous, PCP has been brought up as being such, and there is fact backing this that people using PCP are x% likely to commit violent crimes and hurt others then I am fine with that drug being illegal.

But I've known people to use crack and heroin and not go out and commit crimes or become addicts just from using it or experimenting with it. Sure there are bound to be people that will, but as we've discuss alcohol kills, and injuries many times more people than the other drugs ever will.

People are getting to involved emotionally and should look at this logically. It costs roughly $70 a day to keep a person in prison. I can't find all of the numbers but just for Marijuana inmates with no violent related crimes that adds up to $600+ million we spend on those inmates alone per year.

I don't believe that just because crack, meth or heroin are legalized means that all of a sudden people are going to start shooting up just because it's no longer a crime. Sure some will, but I don't think that the percentage would really increase that much.

Again, I saw have trial runs in certain areas and see how it works out. I could be completely wrong and everything could go to **** but I doubt it. Most people that use drugs, use them for an escape or enjoyment. I've used my fair share of drugs, Marijuana, Alcohol, Mushrooms, Ecstasy and Acid ( I know nothing that crazy) but I never thought, **** I need to go get in a fight or kill someone.

There is no need for these drugs to be illegal, it makes no sense and it does no good. As for crack, herion, meth and the others. I've never had an interest in trying them and I know the risks associated with them so legal or not, that has kept me away from them. Not the law.

Hell you can go buy a can of reddi whip cream and get high from the nitrous oxide at your local supermarket. Don't place your individual values on determining what a law should be. We should be placing overall comprehensive society values on laws that make sense.

I am pretty sure we can all agree raping someone against their will or killing someone should be illegal. These types of laws should be our focus and concern. Not, if you take this pill to feel good because mom and dad say it's bad you go to jail if you get caught with it.

[BlackLantern]

Im curious to see how dispensaries are going to start competing now

[Ghostvirus]

There is a weed called Salvia that is currently legal. Evidently this has hardcore effects. I have chosen not to do it because there is no way I want to do something that hardcore.

I have chosen to do that. If People are going to flock to a product just because it is legal. Then over dose. Then that is one less moron on this planet. Free will people lets exercise it. Lets not worry about protecting the idiot.

[Superman]

If we live in a country where the government is restrained to perform only the duties it should (i.e. protecting your individual rights), then the people themselves would be more responsible. :lmao: Yeah right. And the Banks, Wallstreet, Oil Companies and Coal Companies don't need regulations because they would never do anything wrong that might hurt people.

Talk about being naieve.:doh:

[StorminNorman]

:lmao: Yeah right. And the Banks, Wallstreet, Oil Companies and Coal Companies don't need regulations because they would never do anything wrong that might hurt people.

Talk about being naieve.:doh:

The Banks, Wall Street and Oil Companies are able to do what they do because of government intervention in the first place. When you treat certain industries and companies differently, you end up getting screwed over.

For example, BP should have to cover the expenses of all the damage they have done to the gulf coast. Those costs would destroy the company. Instead, the government is going to cover many of the costs and BP will be saved. That's not free market.

[Hobodeluxe]

I don't buy into the whole "if it's legal more will do it" opinion.
it's around. if you want it you can get it. you've always have been able to.

some may not even try it because it's not illegal and doesn't satisfy that rebellious streak a lot of young people have. it's not as "cool" without the thrill of getting caught. it might lose some allure.

either way it takes money out of bad guys hands,allows the state to benefit from revenue and regulates quality so no one is getting poisoned.

[Ace of Knaves]

As soon as you jack up some brown or toke on some crack you are getting poisoned. Whether it has been boshed up or is 100% pure makes no difference.

Making those things legal is just giving the people who do it some kind of validation.

[StorminNorman]

As soon as you jack up some brown or toke on some crack you are getting poisoned. Whether it has been boshed up or is 100% pure makes no difference.

Making those things legal is just giving the people who do it some kind of validation.

Yes, the validation of knowing that they have the right to do whatever the hell they want to do with their body. You know...the kind of validation that everyone deserves?

You know, I really hope that no one who opposes the legalization of drugs is a Pro Choicer. Those are hypocrites in the most obvious light.

[Ace of Knaves]

You cannot compare agreeing with abortions under certain circumstances to legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth.

And it's not giving them the validation to do whatever the want with their body. It is giving validation to be a ****ing wrong'un who robs little old grannies for money for their next hit.

Just because it is legalized it won't make smack heads and crack heads nice people who go out and work hard for their money to pay for their fix. Crack heads and smack heads are in the large majority of cases, unable to work. So where do they get their money from to get their ****?

They rob people. They are thieving ****s.

It's not like someone who can smoke a joint and work, or smoke a joint WHILST working.

[StorminNorman]

You cannot compare agreeing with abortions under certain circumstances to legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth.

And it's not giving them the validation to do whatever the want with their body. It is giving validation to be a ****ing wrong'un who robs little old grannies for money for their next hit.

Just because it is legalized it won't make smack heads and crack heads nice people who go out and work hard for their money to pay for their fix. Crack heads and smack heads are in the large majority of cases, unable to work. So where do they get their money from to get their ****?

They rob people. They are thieving ****s.

It's not like someone who can smoke a joint and work, or smoke a joint WHILST working.

You are right, abortion endangers the possible life of someone else - the fetus. Drug use only endangers the user.

LOL, so legalization is wrong because drug users are going to steal from other people to buy drugs? Don't those same drug users already steal to buy drugs? The only difference is that in a legalized world - that drug money is going to a businessman, in the criminalized world - that drug money goes to a criminal.

Again, you are confusing the issue of legalization with the morality of the drug itself - it's an easy mistake to make, but a mistake none the less. Criminalization does not make these drugs go away, legalization does not mean everyone will become crackheads.

[Addendum]

And legalization does not make the health risks of the drugs suddenly disappear.

[Majic Walrus]

You are right, abortion endangers the possible life of someone else - the fetus. Drug use only endangers the user.

LOL, so legalization is wrong because drug users are going to steal from other people to buy drugs? Don't those same drug users already steal to buy drugs? The only difference is that in a legalized world - that drug money is going to a businessman, in the criminalized world - that drug money goes to a criminal.

Again, you are confusing the issue of legalization with the morality of the drug itself - it's an easy mistake to make, but a mistake none the less. Criminalization does not make these drugs go away, legalization does not mean everyone will become crackheads.

That!^^

[MessiahDecoy123]

And legalization does not make the health risks of the drugs suddenly disappear.
It lowers the chance your drugs are cut with something bad.

Drugs are safer when you know the dosage and ingredients.

[Ace of Knaves]

No not at all. 100% pure heroin is more dangerous than cut heroin in most cases. People don't bosh up or cut heroin to add dangerous stuff to it, they bosh it up or cut it up with the sole reason to get more out of it, therefore have more to sell.

[Hobodeluxe]

And legalization does not make the health risks of the drugs suddenly disappear.

no but it does lead to a lowering of the risks by a considerable measure.

false choice fallacy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

[Carcharodon]

no but it does lead to a lowering of the risks by a considerable measure.

false choice fallacy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)According to...what, exactly?

[Carcharodon]

In the same way that 2+2=4 is cute, I agree.

The simple reality is that if you live in an environment where you are told that everything you buy has been approved by the government, reputation doesn't matter.

If you live in an environment where there is no such approval, reputation is king.

Before you say "what about those that pick bad companies!?!" - they are still victims in today's world. In spite of regulations AGAINST harmful chemicals, like lead, we still find lead in toys. We still find bad meat. We find all of the bad things that are suppose to be removed by government regulation.That's such a **** argument and you know it, especially that last part. Just because we still find those things doesn't mean government regulation isn't vastly reducing the incidence of those occurrences, and therefore playing an invaluable role in assuring the safety of consumers. Why don't you do yourself a favor and educate yourself about what sort of "quality" consumers got BEFORE government regulation was put into effect? How was your little idea concerning "reputation" protecting consumers then?

[Hobodeluxe]

According to...what, exactly?

are you arguing pharmaceutical methamphetamine would not be cleaner with less poison in it than homemade stuff cooked up in trailer somewhere?

or that industrial grown pot under FDA regulations or even home grown would not be safer than Mexican stuff that has who knows what kind of chemicals on it?

Not to mention the inherent risks of dealing with the criminal element.

use your brain son.

and as for the "regulations fail" "reputation would win out" I disagree.
there's a reason all civilized nations have agencies protecting the consumer.
they keep an eye on things and even if they don't have recalls every day the fact the cop is on the beat and laws are on the books is a deterrent.

I think we've been proven by BP and Wall st that the "trust us" system doesn't work.

[moraldeficiency]

It's not the government job to keep people safe from the themselves. It's the government's job to protect people from other people - and from government.

In the same way that 2+2=4 is cute, I agree.

The simple reality is that if you live in an environment where you are told that everything you buy has been approved by the government, reputation doesn't matter.

If you live in an environment where there is no such approval, reputation is king.

Before you say "what about those that pick bad companies!?!" - they are still victims in today's world. In spite of regulations AGAINST harmful chemicals, like lead, we still find lead in toys. We still find bad meat. We find all of the bad things that are suppose to be removed by government regulation.

Since all products are produced and run by other people, your first paragraph doesn't hold up logically. Unless people were actively making the things they ingest or use all by themselves then they aren't the only ones involved in the process.

For the rest, couldn't you apply that to any law that's not 100% effective? Murder is illegal yet people still murder so by your logic the laws against murder do nothing. Might as well make it legal and let people self regulate, right? I'm sure the murder rates would remain the same.

[enterthemadness]

I think weed gets a bad rep, then again, it causes you to eat too much.:o

Personally, I've been offered, but I never done it because a)I live at home:csad: and b) I don't wanna get in trouble by the po-po. and c) I already act like an idiot anyway.

[Carcharodon]

are you arguing pharmaceutical methamphetamine would not be cleaner with less poison in it than homemade stuff cooked up in trailer somewhere?

or that industrial grown pot under FDA regulations or even home grown would not be safer than Mexican stuff that has who knows what kind of chemicals on it?

Not to mention the inherent risks of dealing with the criminal element.

use your brain son.Logic doesn't always reflect reality. Use your brain, son. Just because a conclusion seems logical doesn't necessarily mean it's the case. I'm saying that you can't simply assume that the risks will be mitigated or even reduced once the supply is under government control. I was hoping for something more than speculation, that's all.

Is it likely that pot would become safer? Maybe. I would like to learn more about the heavy metal toxicity and the potential effect of, say, pesticides on the pot consumer with the weed on today's market. I honestly know very little of the health risks associated with pot (with the exception of the rather obvious fact that inhaling vaporized plant matter can't be good for your lungs), and how the pot we smoke now would actually hold up to government quality-control.

[The BatDude]

90 year old granny arrested for dealing pot. She had 170 pounds of the sticky icky

link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1282231/Armed-police-South-Africa-arrest-granny-90-dealing-drugs.html)

[The BatDude]

Montel Williams lights up a joint for medical marijuana reform
here (http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=118641)
and
here (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/06/montel_williams_lights_a_joint_at_maine_marijuana. php#more)

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS ENDORSE 'PROPOSITION 19'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/california-dems-endorse-p_n_639933.html

[Dr. Evil]

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS ENDORSE 'PROPOSITION 19'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/california-dems-endorse-p_n_639933.html

That bit of news will please Snoop Dogg.

[Marx]

POLL: SLIM MAJORITY OPPOSE LEGALIZATION IN CALIFORNIA
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/new-poll-californians-narrowly-oppose-legalizing-marijuana.php?ref=fpi

[StorminNorman]

I read a study that expects the price of weed to drop dramatically if it becomes legal, due to the fact that most of the price in today's weed come from the fact it's illegal. The price drop was as extreme as $350 an ounce in today's market to $38. This will do tremendous harm to the "revenue" incentive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/08/national/main6658178.shtml

[MessiahDecoy123]

You could still tax it however much you want.

The retail value may be low but you could double the price in taxes. Especially the good stuff.

[Carcharodon]

I read a study that expects the price of weed to drop dramatically if it becomes legal, due to the fact that most of the price in today's weed come from the fact it's illegal. The price drop was as extreme as $350 an ounce in today's market to $38. This will do tremendous harm to the "revenue" incentive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/08/national/main6658178.shtmlYeah, this is something I hadn't considered, but it makes perfect sense. On the other hand, consider this:

If legal marijuana were to remain equally (or approximately) as expensive as it is now, there would still be a black market operating illegally and outside of government regulations. This means that money would STILL need to be spent combating those operations and ensuring that the weed on the market is legal, especially since we know how much the government likes collecting taxes (amirite?).

If, however, the price of legal weed were to drop as predicted...how could those black markets possibly compete? What if the largest gains were made not by direct taxation, but by the savings produced from a reduced effort to combat the black market?

EDIT: I also wonder whether there's a sweet-spot in terms of price and taxation that would bring in appreciable revenue while simultaneously having the above effect on illegal markets. Sort of an optimal balance.

[Marx]

According to the AP, the Oakland City Council is considering a plan to license four production facilities where medical marijuana would be grown, packaged and processed.

[Kelly]

Marijuana Worsens Schizophrenia (http://www.livescience.com/health/marijuana-worsens-schizophrenia-100618.html)

[Marx]

I can't say that surprises me...

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I read a study that expects the price of weed to drop dramatically if it becomes legal, due to the fact that most of the price in today's weed come from the fact it's illegal. The price drop was as extreme as $350 an ounce in today's market to $38. This will do tremendous harm to the "revenue" incentive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/08/national/main6658178.shtml

Holy crap $350 is a lot of money for that(I think in reality its closer to $200 than $400). No wonder these drug dealers have a false sense of confidence. Its time to cut that funding from them and make something good with that money. You are right though, prices will drop significantly if it becomes legal but taxes can be adjusted so that a high percentage of the purchase is actually tax money. Drug dealers will try to stay alive by offering it on the cheap, but they will have a hard time surviving because most people will prefer to purchase this at a designated legal location than going to some shady dealers house.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Marijuana Worsens Schizophrenia (http://www.livescience.com/health/marijuana-worsens-schizophrenia-100618.html)
and alcohol and cigarettes kill people.

[Kelly]

and alcohol and cigarettes kill people.

Wow, really???????? I've never heard that....that is amazing...

[Marx]

Update: According to the AP, Oakland, California has officially become the first city in the United States to legalize 'pot' farms.

[Hobodeluxe]

I read a study that expects the price of weed to drop dramatically if it becomes legal, due to the fact that most of the price in today's weed come from the fact it's illegal. The price drop was as extreme as $350 an ounce in today's market to $38. This will do tremendous harm to the "revenue" incentive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/08/national/main6658178.shtml

It would hit the bad guys in the pocketbooks for sure. all the dealers. from the cartel kings to the neighborhood dealer.

It's not like they can stop it or actually slow it down much. there's too much money to be made. too many people willing to risk it.
Might as well make a buck or two off of it and get some people back into being productive. get rid of some of these draconian random drug tests too. If you have an employee and he's not giving you a problem then why in the world would you risk losing him (and quite frankly invading his privacy) by forcing him to pass a test that could fail him for smoking one joint over the weekend while he was off? (or months ago if they do the hair test) that was his time not yours. you weren't paying him for it. what he does at home on his own time shouldn't be your business. what's next? will they test for tobacco? Cholesterol? Fire you for eating red meat?

and these are for entry level jobs too. sometimes even min wage jobs.
meanwhile the politician who voted for the law is snorting coke off a hooker's butt while on a 3 martini lunch and he doesn't ever have to pee in a cup.

[Marx]

According to the AP, upwards of 100 people have been arrested in a major marijuana sting along the California Sierra Nevada range. The sting reportedly involved $1.7 BILLION in marijuana.

[Kelly]

Holy ****....that is a lot of marijuana...lol

[Marx]

Yeah...I thought I read it wrong.

[Kelly]

Do you know how many $10.00 bags that it is..............HOLY COW.

[ghostrider92]

the government should end the war on drugs all together because they criminalize people who do drugs when its a health issue not a criminal act .

[Carcharodon]

...so crack should be legal?

[Superman]

According to the AP, upwards of 100 people have been arrested in a major marijuana sting along the California Sierra Nevada range. The sting reportedly involved $1.7 BILLION in marijuana.

That is the saddest thing I've seen all week.:waa::waa::waa:

[hippie_hunter]

What the hell are people doing with almost $2 billion dollars worth of weed?

[Superman]

That's $1.7 BILLION the Gov could have been taxing but instead they will spend millions puting these people in jail just so they can get out in a few years and do it all again, Meanwhile the weed never stops coming.

:doh::whatever:

[ObakeTora]

A Texas asthma sufferer who went to California for a medical marijuana recommendation and then got busted in June on a Texas highway with small amounts of marijuana and hashish is facing up to life in prison (http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/aug/10/man-indicted-in-marijuana-case) after being indicted by a Brown County grand jury. He is charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony in the Lone Star State.


http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l161/maitumtigre620/chris-diaz.jpg
Chris Diaz

Chris Diaz, 20, has been jailed on $40,000 bond since the June 27 arrest. He was busted with 14 grams of weed and hash.

Under Texas law, possession of less than two ounces of marijuana is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, while possession of hashish is either a state jail felony punishable by up to two years for less than a gram, or a second-class felony punishable by up to 20 years if less than four grams, although probation is also possible. It is unclear exactly how much hash Diaz had.

Diaz was pulled over for an expired license tag while en route from California to Austin, and according to the DPS trooper's report, could not produce a drivers' license or proof of insurance. He was then arrested for failure to identify, and during a subsequent search, police found a small amount of hashish on his person. A search of the vehicle then turned up more hash and marijuana in pill bottle from a California medical marijuana provider.

The DPS report said the search also turned up a cell phone "containing text messages referring to drug sales" and a notebook with "drug and law writings." Those are apparently the basis, legitimate or otherwise, for the drug distribution charge.

Texas does not have a medical marijuana law, and its authorities do not recognize having a recommendation from another state as a defense against prosecution.

Diaz has attracted supporters both inside Texas and nationally. The Texas Coalition for Compassionate Care (http://www.texascompassion.com/) and a group called I Am Sovereign (http://www.iamsovereign.org/) are publicizing the case and pressuring Brown County officialdom. And the asthmatic Diaz sits in jail in Central Texas awaiting trial, without his medicine (http://www.brownwoodbulletin.com/news/local/article_073a352e-8efa-11df-bad2-001cc4c002e0.html).


Brownwood, TX United States





What the Hell warrants life in prison over a plant? Theres something to be said about a country that has more prisons than schools. Each arrest gives more power to mafias that pop up in your neighborhood, and more danger of stumbling onto a hidden Marijuana plant operated by some Mexican cartel. This is madness.

[terry78]

That is ridiculous. I know it's some kind of moral outrage thing in regards to drugs and that "the law is the law" type of mindset, but come on. The fact that he looks like a Tim Burton cariacture of a Dave Navarro/Johnny Depp love child is irrelevant.

[Alex The Great]

Only in the south

[Ugfugly]

so he should! frikkin junkie, get a job!

[ObakeTora]

yea that's right, lock the dangerous hippie up for all the people he's probably murdered playing Mafia Wars, and all the innocent slur pees he's downed at 7-11. Yea thank God we got another dangerous pot smoker off the street, I don't mind paying 30k a year to house and feed this person. We don't need room in prisons for "real" criminals. I can imagine how well he'd fit in,

"what you here for?"

rape, murder, and jaywalking 40 years, out in parole in 10, you?

"busted with pot, got life."


America land of the hypocrisy.

[katie_girl09]

Not to sound cold, but he looks like a junkie. You'd be surprised at how many people cheat the system just to get "medical marijuana" when there's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

[Ugfugly]

yea that's right, lock the dangerous hippie up for all the people he's probably murdered playing Mafia Wars, and all the innocent slur pees he's downed at 7-11. Yea thank God we got another dangerous pot smoker off the street, I don't mind paying 30k a year to house and feed this person. We don't need room in prisons for "real" criminals. I can imagine how well he'd fit in,

"what you here for?"

rape, murder, and jaywalking 40 years, out in parole in 10, you?

"busted with pot, got life."


America land of the hypocrisy.


The law is the law. It might be stupid but it's still got to be obeyed.

I like to walk around with nothin but the clothes God gave me but I ain't allowed cos some uppity so and so finds my ding-a-ling offensive. I think that's stupid but doesn't mean I shouldn't obey it.

Besides, he wasn't just busted for possession, he was busted for intent to distribute.

I doubt he'll get life

[POWdER-man]

Not to sound cold, but he looks like a junkie. You'd be surprised at how many people cheat the system just to get "medical marijuana" when there's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

I don't think that was the point of the outrage. Although I am sure there some that believe he is not guilty. By the sounds of it IMO he is more than likely guilty of intent to distribute. I think the outrage comes more from receiving a life sentence for such a thing.

[ChickenScratch]

That crap should be legal already.

[Motown Marvel]

with cheek bones like that, he's gonna do real well in prison. i hear wedding bells.

[ObakeTora]

The law is the law. It might be stupid but it's still got to be obeyed.

Laws were enacted to protect us, now they seem like they are merely protecting us from our rights because some self righteous yahoo woke up one morning proclaimed he was Jesus because he couldn't enjoy his coffee without taking away someone's happiness. Yea the law is the law, and it was legal at one point to kill a slave in the nations capitol, it was illegal to to teach a slave how to read, it was also illegal to drink alcohol. Yea I know I'm bringing up old *** but alcohol does far worse than weed, and if there were more smokers and less drinkers (of which I know of several alcoholic police officers) it might be safer to drive the highway, kids wouldn't worry about bad days at the office when daddy comes home to pile drive mommy, and there would be less cases of pancreatitis and liver diseases in hospitals. What would you have against somebody smoking weed in the privacy of their home if he or she never bothered you?? An easy going person who likes to sit alone in his or her private space and just meditate not hurting anybody, you want to send that person to the prisons with the rapists and the murderers? Its the self righteouss people in the world who go around ruining people's lives because some uppity ******* with a self appointed agenda decided to write something into law, so the pharmaceutical and alcohol companies will keep sending him those fat checks and free malt liquor.

I believe you shouldn't kill, why because nobody should have to die, I beleive you shouldn't steal, because that's just messed up, and I believe you shouldnt hurt anybody. But if all your doing is zoning out to reruns of The Flintstones and playing Space Harrier on your computer who is the victim here? You see my point?? Yea probably don't care because it's the law and I hope once China takes over you don't live anywhere near me because I'm going to be talking alot of ****. :cmad:



I like to walk around with nothin but the clothes God gave me but I ain't allowed cos some uppity so and so finds my ding-a-ling offensive. I think that's stupid but doesn't mean I shouldn't obey it.

well yea if your name is ugfugly you should obey that law.



Besides, he wasn't just busted for possession, he was busted for intent to distribute.

I doubt he'll get life




But he was just busted for a half ounce.

Do you even know how much a half ounce is? Give me enough papers or a full lighter and a bong I could smoke all that ish in one night and still run a 6.20 mile!!!! A half ounce is 14 grams the size of half a bag of a sandwich size zip lock worth a measly 200 and some change on the street. Wow those cops confiscated 200 dollars!!!!!! Lets throw a party and dig up Bea Arthur to host! Meanwhile a foreign cartel makes billions off of the same plant because retarded states like Texas feel that guns and wife beating are safer than weed. Just in case you happen to go hiking somewhere in a forest, stumble on some marijuana plants and get shot at by someone don't blame the plant, blame the law enacted that opened up a business opportunity for foreign miscreants to leech off of the fears of the American people.
:cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Figs]

When the **** are these absolute morons going to realize that Alcohol is in fact worse overall then marijuana. The fact that they want to give him life shows how ignorant people are. It reminds me of those propaganda videos they had decades ago. Making pot seem like a hardcore drug that would cause the users to rape and steal.

Hopefully the guy doesn't get life. That would be a travesty, your whole life thrown away because of marijuana yet those hypocritical ****s most likely get **** faced constantly.

Sorry for the mini rant but giving someone life for that is insane. Although I like to drink every now and then, maybe they should ban alcohol again on the grounds that it takes so many lives every single year...at least until they realize they should make pot legal.

[Ghostvirus]

Okay, if this dude gets life. Then I want to See Bill Maher sent to Jail. I want Doug Benson sent to Jail. I wan Joe Rogan sent to Jail. Just to name a few that openly smoke.

The law doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is that there are people literally smoking on camera & nothing happens. This dude because he isn't high profile.

& LIFE!!! Are you kidding me!!! 1 year maybe. As someone mention. People who pay taxes should be pissed that there money is going towards this. But no they are so much more worried about there taxes paying for little jimmys socialistic heart transplant going on there dime.

f-ing rediculous!!!

[ChickenScratch]

Life in prison and he didn't even rape, kill or rob anyone. The war on drugs has failed and sentences like this prove it, if people want to have a good time, let them. legalize it, tax it, put an age limit on it, treat it just like alcohol and cigarettes. Maybe that way we won't have people smuggling and have our own home grown, not to mention putting lots of drug rings out of business. Didn't these people learn their lesson during prohibition?

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz0wPZeaH5w

http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

[Timstuff]

I don't mean to come across as cynical, since that is a ridiculously disproportionate punishment for illegal drug possession (even if he possessed it illegally), but why does it seem like medical marijuana is mostly popular with the same type of people who use non-medical marijuana?

http://i33.tinypic.com/vzakxi.jpg

[Jow Strummer]

Life in prison for half an ounce of weed?!?! Is this a joke or what? Could smoke that in a night.

[Paroxysm]

Glad to see people in Texas really taking a bite out of crime.

[Karem-Knight]

This an absolute abomination, I smoke the plant every so often but drink almost all the time when I'm out and about; but even I can see alcohol is safer than weed. Of course physiologically weed could be worse for you but I have never seen anyone beat the **** out of someone or vandalise someone's property from being stoned. Not to mention there's no hangover after smoking weed.

If this guy gets life then as ChickenScratch said, the "War on Drugs" is over and it's now just close to being totalitarian-like laws against it- doesn't mean people will stop doing it though.

[Figs]

I don't mean to come across as cynical, since that is a ridiculously disproportionate punishment for illegal drug possession (even if he possessed it illegally), but why does it seem like medical marijuana is mostly popular with the same type of people who use non-medical marijuana?

I used to smoke in my early 20's and am all for legalizing marijuana but as far as i'm concerned, "medical marijuana" is an excuse for the most part. I'm sure with some people it helps in the case of a loss of appetite but I think it's funny that people are inhaling smoke when they're incredibly sick not to mention it increases the speed of your heart which technically isn't that good if it's not from doing something physical.

I'm definitely not against people using it for "medical" purposes but I do think it's a bit of a BS excuse.