Discussion: Legalizing Marijuana

[lazur]

but sometimes the pro-marijuana side tries to make it sound like that no one that has ever smoked pot has gone on to hard drugs....that they just smoke weed, are happy, and never try anything else....

Negative. As I said in response to Heretic in my last post, only 4% of total marijuana users have tried heroin. This means that 96% of marijuana users have NEVER tried heroin.

The statistics and hard, cold data do not support the 'gateway drug' argument. Period.

[BlackLantern]

Pro hemp is actually the term. The problem you get is that some "movements" are simply pro-drugs, and that sounds like some of the people. Although except in documentaries I've never seen an interview with anyone in any movement regarding this. You see some gov. lackey and they tell you what you should know based on blatant lies, and there's never a counter point addressed that I've seen.

As for the people you know, it really depends on the state they live in. Some allow it. Some allow it but then restrict it with political double talk that allows you to smoke but not possess the substance, and some outright disregard any indication that it could be in the least bit helpful.

And I apologize for misunderstanding you earlier, yes I hate those ****ers too. Anyone that hides behind someone else's pain is an *******. Personally I like to smoke pot because I like how I feel and it takes a bit of my aggressive tendencies down a notch.

This bothers me....are you so angry and hardcore and vicious that you need pot to "calm you down"??

People make it sound like they are such badasses and that pot is the only thing that can "level them out"....Rebels without a clue

[Tron5000]

A Sentra is a gateway car to a Corvette, and people die driving too fast in Corvettes. Sentras should be outlawed.

[DorkyFresh]

but sometimes the pro-marijuana side tries to make it sound like that no one that has ever smoked pot has gone on to hard drugs....that they just smoke weed, are happy, and never try anything else....

how many pro-marijuana people on this thread have tried to make that argument? besides, like i said, ANY mind or body altering substance can be a gateway drug....so the gateway drug argument is moot. it really depends on the individual....not the drug. drugs aren't the problem, it's the people with addictive personalities that are.

[moraldeficiency]

but sometimes the pro-marijuana side tries to make it sound like that no one that has ever smoked pot has gone on to hard drugs....that they just smoke weed, are happy, and never try anything else....

So if they did a study and showed 4% of heroin addicts watched over 3 hours of TV a day would you draw that same correlation? That constant TV watching made you more likely to be a heroin addict?

Isn't it far more likely that people with an extremely addictive personality that end up getting hooked on heroin used pot as well because they're natural born addicts. People who will freaking sniff glue to get high, so any high regardless is good to them. I doubt hemp turned them into heroin addicts, move like they were addicts before they even tried drugs.

[DorkyFresh]

A Sentra is a gateway car to a Corvette, and people die driving too fast in Corvettes. Sentras should be outlawed.
lol!!! ^5 :up:

This bothers me....are you so angry and hardcore and vicious that you need pot to "calm you down"??
exaggerate much? seems like it. where in his post did he indicate that he had a raging temper?

People make it sound like they are such badasses and that pot is the only thing that can "level them out"....Rebels without a clue
actually, you're the only one making it sound that way.

[moraldeficiency]

This bothers me....are you so angry and hardcore and vicious that you need pot to "calm you down"??

People make it sound like they are such badasses and that pot is the only thing that can "level them out"....Rebels without a clue

I'm just a fairly naturally angry individual, higher aggression levels is what my shrink used to call it.

I never meant to imply anything about me being badass, just that toking up helps me talk to people I would normally not be able to tolerate without being a complete ******* to them. My girl has some friends I absolutely hate, they go on about energies and crystals and crap, and I just want to scream in their faces, "shut the **** up and think about something other than your own narrow viewpoints for a ****ing change!!!". I'd be willing to bet you have some of these as well.

You know you're really reaching with this, I'd say it's more telling of your insecurities.

[BlackLantern]

what insecurities would those be?

[Spidey-Bat]

at the end of the day, I really don't care as I'm not a regular pot smoker

So you're an irregular pot smoker?

[moraldeficiency]

what insecurities would those be?

Well I don't know specifically but I'd say you're a bit touchy on your masculinity or just how "badass" you are. Generally speaking people secure in who they are laugh off pretenders and people who don't know what they're talking about with a smile and grin. But for you to go into how I think I'm a badass because I admitted to having a bit of a temper and pot calming me down, that level of reaching makes me feel you could use a little confidence boost. People try to shoot others down to their level, bullies belittle to make their own problems seem less, so I don't know what your thing might be but chill fella, I wasn't saying how cool I was because pot helps me relax, just stating a fact. There was no need for you to insert words like hardcore or badass to describe someone with a short temper, cause I assure you there's nothing badass or hardcore about being an *******, despite what movies you might have seen to the contrary. I make a statement about how pot helps me be less of an ******* and you treat it like I'm bragging. I'd say there's some emotional baggage there. Someone give this man a hug.

[Tron5000]

Let's play nice, boys.

[BlackLantern]

See...I believe that a measure of someone is how they control their temper. So when someone tells me they need some sort of substance (Be it pills, pot, alcohol, whatever) to control said temper, that speaks to a persons character in my opinion.

My issue is that pot gets held up by some as this great thing when it really is no more special than pills, tobacco, or alcohol....

[Tron5000]

See...I believe that a measure of someone is how they control their temper. So when someone tells me they need some sort of substance (Be it pills, pot, alcohol, whatever) to control said temper, that speaks to a persons character in my opinion.

My issue is that pot gets held up by some as this great thing when it really is no more special than pills, tobacco, or alcohol....

A bad temper can be driven by many things. Hypertension, high blood pressure, anxiety...Not a character issue. A personal health issue.

[DorkyFresh]

My issue is that pot gets held up by some as this great thing when it really is no more special than pills, tobacco, or alcohol....

despite the popular notion that pot degrades the brain, pot has yet to be scientifically or medically proven to degrade ones health like alcohol, tobacco, and pills do. also...how many different things can you make with pills, tobacco or alcohol compared to hemp?

despite you voting "i don't know" you seem to be against it really...

[BlackLantern]

A bad temper can be driven by many things. Hypertension, high blood pressure, anxiety...Not a character issue. A personal health issue.

So it's a personal health issue when someone decides to call you a ****** and beat you with an extension cord....

Short of a serious mental disorder, actions are dicated by the persons character....

[moraldeficiency]

See...I believe that a measure of someone is how they control their temper. So when someone tells me they need some sort of substance (Be it pills, pot, alcohol, whatever) to control said temper, that speaks to a persons character in my opinion.

My issue is that pot gets held up by some as this great thing when it really is no more special than pills, tobacco, or alcohol....

Exactly, and I'm not exactly a paradigm of virtue here nor have I ever billed myself as such, my username alone should make that obvious. But if hitting a joint makes me less of an *******, why is that a bad thing.

Ok, I get your issue. But you have to admit everyone on earth has a variety of mental problems, from me to you. Some like you might have them dealt with or at least undercontrol and that's great. Others like myself, need some help. Where do you draw the line on what's right in those circumstances? Someone with clear mental problems obviously needs medication to get through, but what about the people that are not that advanced but still in need? I think the amount of ADD meds and the level they're used is sick, but I don't doubt there are people that legitamitely need the stuff to function within reason. I've been to shrinks to very little effect, but a joint a day makes this mick less a dick.

Pot is different than alcohol in that it inhibits the violent type of outbursts that alcohol typically brings and cigs are a stimulant. Neither alcohol nor cigs are ever used as painkillers or positive mood alteration substances so that comparison doesn't really hold up. Pills are used as both harmful drugs and appropriate medication, so if you wanted to make that comparison I'm cool with that. I'm also assuming you'd never take an asprin to kill a headache that put you in a bad mood, you just rise above the need of such things, right?

So my character is deficient to the point of needing (or at least liking) the effect hemp has on my mind. Fine, I can deal with that. Why is it a problem for you? Or are you just braging about being a "superior" person?

Personally I measure worth by one character trait, loyality. Self control is often a good thing but can also lead to massive unhappiness and bottled up festering emotions. You need some self control but also some ******* in you to be a complete person in my mind. To be someone I think is worth something, you have to show loyality above your personal interests.

[Marx]

Mexican cartels running pot farms in US national forest
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/index.html

[SentinelMind]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/addictions/drugs/485.html

Research on the hazardous effects of marijuana one one's physical and mental health. I don't want more of that on our streets, in our places of leisure....

I agree with BlackLantern....anyone who needs a substance to stay in control has some personal character issues....and I don't want people more abusing another hazardous substance to maintain "control" in their lives and create problems in the lives of others....

[Spider-Bite]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/addictions/drugs/485.html

Research on the hazardous effects of marijuana one one's physical and mental health. I don't want more of that on our streets, in our places of leisure....

I agree with BlackLantern....anyone who needs a substance to stay in control has some personal character issues....and I don't want people more abusing another hazardous substance to maintain "control" in their lives and create problems in the lives of others....

the crminilization is responsible for 90% of the problems associated with marijuana, on the users and on the lives of others.

It's time to take this drug off the streets and out of the hands of the black market, and start regulating it, to prevent it from funding gang activity and falling into the hands of children.



I agree with BlackLantern....anyone who needs a substance to stay in control has some personal character issues....

Attempting to villify the users has no bearing on the effects legalization would have on society. and no it is not relevant to their character. Just because somebody smokes marijuana, that does not make them a bad person, or even a lazy stupid person. It didn't even stop Einstein from creating the theory of relativity. It did stop him from paying taxes on it however.

The criminilization of marijuana actually destroys lives, and hurts economic productivity in many, many ways. It hurts the govrnment's budget. It hurts the war on crime and gang activity. It hurts our ability to secure our border. It hurts our ability to keep this drug out of the hands of children. It hurts kids in college. It hurts workers on the job, when they get drug tested, sending people back to welfare, with their career in ruins.

Keeping marijuana illegal is basically counter productive to everything people want to be productive. It helps society in basically no visible way, and hurts it in countless ways.

Keeping it illegal, is really just ignorant. It's like beyond belief stupid.

[BlackLantern]

Even if marijuana were to become legal....a private company is not going to change its drug testing or banned substance policies....

[Spider-Bite]

Even if marijuana were to become legal....a private company is not going to change its drug testing or banned substance policies....

They have to. It's unlawful to discriminate against the use of lawful products in one's private life. It would be an unlawful violation of your privacy and civil rights. Just like they can't ask you to report for a breathylizer 3 hours after you get off work.

Not to mention students halfway through college wont suddenly lose their financial aid, because of a drug charge, leaving them with massive student loans, but no degree to get the job to pay them back.

[BlackLantern]

They have to. It's unlawful to discriminate against the use of lawful products in one's private life. It would be an unlawful violation of your privacy and civil rights. Just like they can't ask you to report for a breathylizer 3 hours after you get off work.

Not to mention students halfway through college wont suddenly lose their financial aid, because of a drug charge, leaving them with massive student loans, but no degree to get the job to pay them back.

Legal loopholes work both ways....if it was legal....companies would still drug test and probably unofficially base their decisions on the results..

kinda like how on a job application they ask if you've ever been convicted or jailed and if you have it won't affect the hiring decision....when in reality, no one wants a convict working in their office....

[Spider-Bite]

Legal loopholes work both ways....if it was legal....companies would still drug test and probably unofficially base their decisions on the results..

kinda like how on a job application they ask if you've ever been convicted or jailed and if you have it won't affect the hiring decision....when in reality, no one wants a convict working in their office....

But they can not ask you to take a drug test ifor marijuana if it is legal. It's like asking you to take a paternity test to see if your kids are yours. They just can't.

[BlackLantern]

But companies would still drug test.....i don't know about you but I don't want to be sitting at work next to someone who reeks of pot....there is a time and a place for it, and work is NOT it....

[Spidey-Bat]

Companies don't drug test for alcohol or tobacco. Why would they for marijuana if it was legal?

[SentinelMind]

^Some companies do test for alcohol use...where I work does....

[The Senator]

^Some companies do test for alcohol use...where I work does....

Where the hell do you work? Hill Cumorah? :huh:

[lazur]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/addictions/drugs/485.html

Research on the hazardous effects of marijuana one one's physical and mental health. I don't want more of that on our streets, in our places of leisure....

I agree with BlackLantern....anyone who needs a substance to stay in control has some personal character issues....and I don't want people more abusing another hazardous substance to maintain "control" in their lives and create problems in the lives of others....

The first site you linked gives no definitive evidence of anything. It suggests the possibility that marijuana may have negative effects, but then it clearly indicates that evidence doesn't exist to support the possibility, scientifically or otherwise.

The second site is complete bs, starting with the first 'chemical addiction' claim. The human body produces natural cannaboid receptors which makes it physically impossible to become chemically addicted. This is true because for any drug that is addictive, the body does not already create natural receptors. For example, the body does not create/produce natural receptors to nicotine until after nicotine is consumed. Once the receptors are created in reaction to consuming nicotine, the brain developes the 'addiction' in order to keep the receptors going. With THC, however, these receptors are present in the human brain from birth. Which makes you wonder if the human species was intended to consume THC...

I understand your perspective. If you're opposed to it, you're opposed to it. However, to label regular users of marijuana as 'needing marijuana' in order to function isn't exactly fair. Sure, people can abuse it, but many more people are casual in its use.

Also, since you've given us links to read on marijuana (though arguably from government and/or non-profit sites, which are by nature biased against marijuana), you should read up on the medicinal properties of THC, which far outweigh any of the perceived 'hazards,' and which are clinically and scientifically proven. There has also never been a documented fatality from THC - yet Tylenol, the most harmless OTC drug, has killed thousands. In fact, it's possible to OD on water before you can OD on THC.

So let's not portray THC as hazardous to humans when no evidence of *any* kind exists to support the claim.

[Matt]

It was time to legalize pot 30 years ago.

[Matt]

Mexican cartels running pot farms in US national forest
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/index.html

:o Mexicans taking jobs off of hard working American pot farmers :cmad:

http://theytookerjerbs.ytmnd.com/

[highscorefilms]

But they can not ask you to take a drug test ifor marijuana if it is legal. It's like asking you to take a paternity test to see if your kids are yours. They just can't.

A private company can screen you for anything they don't want in their workplace. Most companies ask you to go to a certain place if you want to smoke and not to drink while on the job, and alcohol and tobacco are legal substances. If marijuana were to become legal, finding it during a drug screening in the hiring process wouldn't carry the same weight. But if you smoke on the job, you can be fired if the employer doesn't want you to do it, just like if you're caught drinking on the job. The only exception is given to tobacco, probably because tobacco isn't known to affect your response time or senses.

Just to clarify, I do support the legalization of marijuana fully, but I also support the right of private companies to decide how they want their employees to conduct business.

[Matt]

How they want their employees to conduct business? Absolutely. They cannot tell them what they can and cannot do in their personal lives though. You can't have a company that tells an employee that they cannot do something perfectly legal when they are on their own hours.

[highscorefilms]

Absolutely right. A vast majority of bosses don't care if you get drunk on the weekend, but if you get drunk during business hours, that's a problem. Same with marijuana. If you want to use it on your own time, that's your business, but not when you're on the clock. That's when you can get in trouble for it.

[chaseter]

I don't see the glamour in weed so I say no...if you want to go no where with your life, by all means go ahead. I don't care if they legalize it...but I doubt it will ever happen.

[Superman]

I need some SUPER WEED!!!!
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2104/marijuanaposterwm3.jpg


:hehe::hehe::hehe:
http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/edoom/Smoker.gif

[Spidey-Bat]

I don't see the glamour in weed so I say no...if you want to go no where with your life, by all means go ahead.

Yeah because every pot smoker is an unemployed free loader :whatever:

[The Senator]

I don't see the glamour in weed so I say no...if you want to go no where with your life, by all means go ahead.

Now that's a silly statement.

[Gilpesh]

I don't see the glamour in weed so I say no...if you want to go no where with your life, by all means go ahead. I don't care if they legalize it...but I doubt it will ever happen.

And all brown people are terrorists.

:whatever:

Stereotypes are fun!

[Carcharodon]

I don't see the glamour in weed so I say no...if you want to go no where with your life, by all means go ahead.Yeah, I'm sure going nowhere. I'm well on my way to my B.S. with a 3.8 GPA, but I smoke pot, so I must be doomed. :huh: :dry:

[Carcharodon]

That's what I love about Carch. He may disagree with you, but he will ask you to explain your position.

How's life, Carch?Aw, thanks. :woot: Life is good. I'm on week 7 out of 10 for this marine science center internship, so I've gotten to do some pretty cool stuff. :up:

You?

[Superman]

Damn it! It never fails. Here I am on my 40th birthday and I have no weed.:cmad:

This sucks.:csad:

[MattBearPig]

Damn it! It never fails. Here I am on my 40th birthday and I have no weed.:cmad:

This sucks.:csad:

That's cuz you're too poor to buy some because you have no job because you smoke pot. :cwink:

[Superman]

That's cuz you're too poor to buy some because you have no job because you smoke pot. :cwink:Well you got the poor part right, But ain't we all poor these days? :csad:

[BlackLantern]

Well you got the poor part right, But ain't we all poor these days? :csad:

Not those of us who aren't buying weed all the time.....:yay:

[Carcharodon]

Not those of us who aren't buying weed all the time.....:yay:Weed really isn't all that expensive. :huh:

[Superman]

HA!!! I just got me some weed, Now it's really a Happy Birthday. :woot: http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/edoom/Smoker.gif :woot:

[Kelly]

I would have to go to another state....the person I was buying it from would probably be the brother or sister of a student or former student if I bought it here.....


But, that's ok.....I'll pass anyway....a Bud Light Lime does just fine for me....

[KAD]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/addictions/drugs/485.html

Research on the hazardous effects of marijuana one one's physical and mental health. I don't want more of that on our streets, in our places of leisure....

I agree with BlackLantern....anyone who needs a substance to stay in control has some personal character issues....and I don't want people more abusing another hazardous substance to maintain "control" in their lives and create problems in the lives of others....


Using or not using a substance is no indication of a persons character, actions or motivation.

People that smoke are mostly gainfully employed peaceful and otherwise law abiding citizens.

Rather than fight legalization why not take up the fight against cig's' and alcohol, two perfectly legal substances that kill more people (children included) than any other.

How many people die from a pot overdose each year???

[BlackLantern]

Using or not using a substance is no indication of a persons character, actions or motivation.

People that smoke are mostly gainfully employed peaceful and otherwise law abiding citizens.

Rather than fight legalization why not take up the fight against cig's' and alcohol, two perfectly legal substances that kill more people (children included) than any other.

How many people die from a pot overdose each year???


I consider cigs and alcohol just as bad as marijuana....just because no one has died of a marijuana overdose doesn't mean it isn't harmful in another way....

I'm not fighting anything, I just don't care for it...

[Gilpesh]

I consider cigs and alcohol just as bad as marijuana....just because no one has died of a marijuana overdose doesn't mean it isn't harmful in another way....

I'm not fighting anything, I just don't care for it...

:huh: Then why come in here and make very ill informed statements like that?

[Kelly]

Because he has a right to his opinion.......as we all do.

[KAD]

I consider cigs and alcohol just as bad as marijuana....just because no one has died of a marijuana overdose doesn't mean it isn't harmful in another way....

I'm not fighting anything, I just don't care for it...

I apologize, I wasn't targeting anyone in particular more so the point of view.

It's like the gateway argument, legalize it and take it out of the enviornments where the truly heavy drugs are sold.

[Gilpesh]

Because he has a right to his opinion.......as we all do.

Even though facts prove that view misguided? :huh:

[Kelly]

Even though facts prove that view misguided? :huh:

He still has a right to his opinion....so what? There are opinions thrown around this place everyday in all of the forums that are supposedly proven wrong, so what? They are still given, and have every right to be given....BL is a large contributer to this forum, and he has every right to give his opinion in whatever thread he wants to. As do you.....

There is all kinds of research on both sides of this issue. It has been debated for decades.....everyone has an opinion on either side of the issue, and have every right to give it here.



With your criteria, half the people on this entire site should shut up and turn off their computer....

[BlackLantern]

Why thank you Kel.....my whole point is that legalizing marijuana won't automatically mean people will accept it within our society...

Like I said before...I don't want to sit next to someone at work or in a restaurant who reeks of pot....Time and a place is all im saying....time and a place...

[Gilpesh]

-rant-

Jeeeez.

Why thank you Kel.....my whole point is that legalizing marijuana won't automatically mean people will accept it within our society...

Well, that's a different story than, "just as bad as alcohol and cigarettes" :oldrazz:

My bad then.

[BlackLantern]

I personally consider it just as bad a habit as habitual (daily) cigarettes or drinking.....

[Spidey-Bat]

More like biting your nails. Habitual use of cigarettes or drinking are far more damaging to your body.

[Kelly]

Man, the experts on this thread is frightening.....

[Carcharodon]

More like biting your nails. Habitual use of cigarettes or drinking are far more damaging to your body.Biting your nails? Seriously?

I smoke pot, but I also know that it's potentially harmful, and it's far more harmful than you're portraying it to be here. It MIGHT be less harmful than habitual alcohol abuse or cigarette smoking (emphasis on might, because I really don't believe that to be totally correct), but to marginalize its health effects like you seem to be doing here is completely wrong, in my opinion.

The only reason there are typically less health issues arising from marijuana use is that most people don't smoke it as frequently as people who are addicted to cigarettes smoke cigarettes. Those who do may actually run a higher risk of the associated cancers.

If you're smoking pot, smoking cigarettes OR abusing alcohol, at least know what you're doing to your body. Pot isn't healthy. Period.

[Spidey-Bat]

I was just exaggerating to emphasize how alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than pot.

[Pluto]

Why not. It's a great medicinal aid.

[Excel]

Weed alone is fine, but its a ***** to keep it to JUST weed, least it was for me anyways. I smoked frequently during high school, but it got old in college and I moved onto to shrooms & cocaine. People who say how bad of a gateway drug it is are for real; its the real deal.

It would be fine to legalize weed if it was the only thing of its kind, but its not and thats why you cant legalize. People become addicted, the effect wares off, and they go onto much worse things.

[kainedamo]

With weed, people are a lot less likely to become habitual (daily) smokers. For most, its a once a week, once a month, or a couple of times a year thing.

[moraldeficiency]

What I love is how everyone is acting like this is something new that we need to deal with: THE MAJORITY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE USA GREW AND SMOKED!!!! THEY ALSO DID THINGS LIKE MAKE THE US INDEPENDENT AND WRITE THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS!!! So if you have a problem with pot smokers you have a problem with george washington, ben franklin, electricity, democracy, freedom and corn dogs.

If people were just educated rather than scared and lied too, this wouldn't be an issue.

Sidenote, I saw pineapple express last night, pretty funny but not as good as superbad.

[Kelly]

What I love is how everyone is acting like this is something new that we need to deal with: THE MAJORITY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE USA GREW AND SMOKED!!!! THEY ALSO DID THINGS LIKE MAKE THE US INDEPENDENT AND WRITE THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS!!! So if you have a problem with pot smokers you have a problem with george washington, ben franklin, electricity, democracy, freedom and corn dogs.

If people were just educated rather than scared and lied too, this wouldn't be an issue.

Sidenote, I saw pineapple express last night, pretty funny but not as good as superbad.


Really? do you have some sources to back that up, as in proven historical data? That would be some interesting reading....

[CieloAzul]

Really? do you have some sources to back that up, as in proven historical data? That would be some interesting reading....

Read it and weep.

American High Society

The extent of cannabis smoking during the Colonial era is still subject to debate. President George Washington wrote a letter that contained an oblique reference to what may have been hashish. "The artificial preparation of hemp, from Silesia, is really a curiosity." 38 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#38) Washington made specific written references to Indian hemp, or cannabis indica, and hoped to "have disseminated the seed to others. " 39 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#39) His August 7, 1765 diary entry, "began to separate the male from the female (hemp) plants," describes a harvesting technique favored to enhance the potency of smoking cannabis, among other reasons. 40 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#40) Hemp farmer Thomas Jefferson and paper maker Ben Franklin were ambassadors to France during the initial surge of the hashish vogue. Their celebrity status and progressive revolutionary image afforded them ample opportunities to try new experiences. Jefferson smuggled Chinese hemp seeds to America and is credited with the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Did the Founding Fathers of the United States of America smoke cannabis? Some researchers think so. Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. 41 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#41) "Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking," said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson, all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was "about the only good thing" about that war.
Central and Western African natives were farming and harvesting cannabis sativa in North America as slaves. If they did smoke on the plantations, that would be kept secret. 42 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#42) By the time of the Louisiana purchase in 1803, New Orleans had a mixed Spanish, French, Creole, Cajun, Mexican and Black population. The city teemed with adventurers and sailors, wise to the ways of cannabis. It was mixed with tobacco or smoked alone, used to season food 43 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#43), to treat insomnia and impotence, and so on. Cannabis was mentioned as a medicinal agent in a formal American medical text as early as 1843. 44 (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html#44)

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html

[Kelly]

I'll do my own research on it....thanks.

It would actually be better to find the actual diary entries themselves.....

Interesting stuff though..........looks like it was mostly used for medicinal purposes, which is nothing new in this time period.....

Remember Cocaine was used in the same manner at one point in our history...

I'll post what I find when I get a chance.


Read it and weep? lmao.....ok. Grow up........I actually would like to read the sources.

[CieloAzul]

Uh, good luck on finding the actual diary entries. You'll need a coupld of PHDs before that's even a possibility, if you don't already have them... which sounds very likely.

Cocaine = addictive
Marijuana = no one is giving bj's in a back alley for a roach. They're really not comparible.

[moraldeficiency]

Really? do you have some sources to back that up, as in proven historical data? That would be some interesting reading....

Yeah, there's a lot actually, but like you said you like to do your own research so get on it. It's easier if you look for hemp rather than marijuina because that name was made up by dupont in the 1940s to scare people. Here's a bit on wiki to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Hemp use dates back to the Stone Age, with hemp fibre imprints found in pottery shards in China and Taiwan[32] over 10,000 years old. Legend credits Ts'ai-Lun, a Chinese eunuch in the emperor's court, with inventing paper about 105 AD. Specimens were found in the Great Wall of China which date back 200 years earlier. These papers were made from hemp. These ancient Asians also used the same fibres to make clothes, shoes, ropes, and an early form of paper.[32]

Hemp cloth was more common than linen until the mid 14th century.[citation needed] The use of hemp as a cloth was centered largely in the countryside, with higher quality textiles being available in the towns. Virtually every small town had access to a hemp field.[citation needed]

In late medieval Germany and Italy, hemp was employed in cooked dishes, as filing in pies and tortes, or boiled in a soup.[33]
Cannabis sativa illustration from 1543.

The traditional European hemp was by tradition and due to its low narcotic effect not used as a drug in Europe. It was cultivated for its fibers and for example used by Christopher Columbus for ropes on his ships.

In the Napoleonic era, many military uniforms were made of hemp.[citation needed] While hemp linens were coarser than those made of flax, the added strength and durability of hemp, as well as the lower cost, meant that hemp uniforms were preferred.

The Spaniards first brought hemp to the Western Hemisphere and cultivated it in Chile starting about 1545.[34] In North America, the Puritans are first known to have cultivated hemp in New England in 1645.[34]

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both cultivated hemp on their farms—the Declaration of Independence was drafted on paper made from hemp fibers. Benjamin Franklin started the first American paper mill, which made paper exclusively from hemp.[35]
U.S. 'Marihuana' production permit. In the USA, hemp cultivation is legally prohibited, but during World War II farmers were encouraged to grow hemp for cordage, to replace Manila hemp previously obtained from Japanese-controlled areas. The US government produced a film explaining the uses of hemp called Hemp for Victory.

Hemp was used extensively by the United States during WWII. Uniforms, canvas, and rope were among the main textiles created from the hemp plant at this time. Much of the hemp used was planted in the Midwest and Kentucky. Historically, hemp production made up a significant portion of Kentucky's economy and many slave plantations located there focused on producing hemp.[36]

By the early twentieth century, the advent of the steam engine and the diesel engine ended the reign of the sailing ship. The advent of iron and steel for cable and ships' hulls further eliminated natural fibers in marine use, although hemp had long since fallen out of favour in the sailing industry in preference to Manila hemp. The invention of artificial fibers in the late thirties by DuPont further put strain on the market.

[Kelly]

Meh....MD I don't even allow wiki research in my classes........but its a good start.

[Gilpesh]

but it got old in college and I moved onto to shrooms & cocaine.

Do you see what I bolded there?

You got sick of weed.... then you decided to move on. That's a textbook case of you making a decision. You did not need to move on to other drugs. You decided when weed 'got old'.

Nowhere in your post does it prove that weed caused you to seek out other more dangerous drugs just cause you had to have them.

[terry78]

Then you have people that gripe and lobby against the high taxation of substances for one reason or another. They're already trying their damndest here in Indiana to get alcohol sales on Sunday, which we currently don't have. I don't drink so I really don't give a **** either way, but if I was a liquor store owner I'd be all up on it.

[BlackLantern]

I think the point he is trying to make is that, while it doesn't happen to everyone, smoking weed can affect your mindset to the point where it isn't enough and you move onto other drugs.....I have a former friend who, quite literally, has violent mood swings if he doesn't smoke up a few times throughout the day....

[moraldeficiency]

Meh....MD I don't even allow wiki research in my classes........but its a good start.

Good for you, but why should that matter to me as I'm not in your class?

Research it in any "credible" source you'd like. You'll find a large group of our founding fathers grew hemp, were explained the properties and advantages of smoking unpollinated female buds (mental preparedness and painkilling) and while there isn't pictures of George Washington hitting a bong or Ben Franklin smoking a doob, you consider their other actions (washington's need of painkillers for heath problems and franklin's general headonism) you get a pretty good picture. Hemp has a long history here before dupont and hearst decided to start making moral decisions for us "lesser" people.

The fact that the 2001 Imperitive Rule actually made the declaration of independence an illegal substance is also kinda amusing (at least to us stoners)

[StorminNorman]

But I would ask Excel if he drank as well. Again - I have known people who have gotten drunk and have suddenly found the idea of moving to harder drugs to be a great idea, I have never known someone to get high and then decided that what he really needed right then was some coke.

[CieloAzul]

I found my source highly credible. &&I wouldn't use wikip as a source when there's more reliable information out there. That's really a last resort information location.

[Gilpesh]

I think the point he is trying to make is that, while it doesn't happen to everyone,

So we have to protect the few from themselves by punishing everyone?

smoking weed can affect your mindset to the point where it isn't enough and you move onto other drugs.....

Funny. I hate to be a Kel about it. But I'd love to see some research on it. It'd be an interesting read.

I have a former friend who, quite literally, has violent mood swings if he doesn't smoke up a few times throughout the day....

Well, tell me about the rest of his life and you might find there's another cause for violent mood swings than just fits into your argument against pot.

[BlackLantern]

well....when we are stuck in an airport waiting for a flight and he's huffing and snapping at me and saying "I've gotta get baked' every 5 ****ing minutes.....it's an issue

[CieloAzul]

Just thinking about having to go through airport security alone make me want to get high.

[Eggyman]

Legalize pot? I'm sure all smokers of it would love the price to triple :down

[terry78]

Legalize pot? I'm sure all smokers of it would love the price to triple :down

8 dollars for a vodka red bull that's more red bull than vodka, they say. Big brother will always charge you out the ass for substances that can become addictive. Lesson well learned.

[highscorefilms]

I think the point he is trying to make is that, while it doesn't happen to everyone, smoking weed can affect your mindset to the point where it isn't enough and you move onto other drugs.....I have a former friend who, quite literally, has violent mood swings if he doesn't smoke up a few times throughout the day....

A small percentage of marijuana users will graduate to harder drugs, but that's more of an issue with the individual than an issue of the substance. Not to play down personal experiences because when this sort of thing happens to someone you know and care about, it can feel a lot more weighty than looking at the big picture. My brother similarly had a very bad pot habit and it got out of control. However, my dad admitted to doing it when he was my age and he had no other problems. Most people who smoke marijuana will just smoke marijuana and stay there.

I've read some previous posts and, on a personal comfort standpoint, I'm with you. I don't like pot, and I don't like being around people using it. That's my comfort level with the stuff. However, to quote Penn Jillette, "I'm not going to come to your house with a gun to stop you from getting stoned and listening to the Grateful Dead noodle." I support people's right to control their bodies and minds, while at the same time abstaining because it's not my scene.

[Excel]

But I would ask Excel if he drank as well.

Yes. :O

But now I do niether smoke or drink.

Do you see what I bolded there?

You got sick of weed.... then you decided to move on. That's a textbook case of you making a decision. You did not need to move on to other drugs. You decided when weed 'got old'.

Nowhere in your post does it prove that weed caused you to seek out other more dangerous drugs just cause you had to have them.

Obviously I made the decision; the problem is that for a lot of people who do weed end up making the same decision; the gov. would be wise to avoid having millions of people making this decision and just keeping it illegal.

[Excel]

Read it and weep.


http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/7_presidents.html

Good source :o

[moraldeficiency]

Yes. :O

But now I do niether smoke or drink.

You must be lots of fun at parties.

Obviously I made the decision; the problem is that for a lot of people who do weed end up making the same decision; the gov. would be wise to avoid having millions of people making this decision and just keeping it illegal.

You're right, but we shouldn't stop there. This whole voting thing costs billions and ties up time, we could just let bush stay president. Oh, and I'm tired of choosing who to date or marry so maybe the gov. could settle that for me too. Now if only I didn't have to think about what job to get....settle that and the US would save trillions and so much time and all we have to do is give up free choice and the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. The more I think about it, 1984 wasn't a bad society, it was just really efficient.

[souvlaki]

Legalize pot? I'm sure all smokers of it would love the price to triple :down

I think most people would happily pay triple if it meant they could buy it legally without the added stress that comes from buying it and possessing it illegally.

[Gilpesh]

Obviously I made the decision; the problem is that for a lot of people who do weed end up making the same decision;

Where's your source? Any numbers behind that?

the gov. would be wise to avoid having millions of people making this decision and just keeping it illegal.

Um... that argument could destroy freedom everywhere, for everyone. Let's just keep people from making decisions at all. :whatever:

[CieloAzul]

Good source :o

I know. I love it when people cite their published resources.

[Excel]

You must be lots of fun at parties.

I've had my fun with parties.

You're right, but we shouldn't stop there. This whole voting thing costs billions and ties up time, we could just let bush stay president. Oh, and I'm tired of choosing who to date or marry so maybe the gov. could settle that for me too. Now if only I didn't have to think about what job to get....settle that and the US would save trillions and so much time and all we have to do is give up free choice and the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. The more I think about it, 1984 wasn't a bad society, it was just really efficient.

Im not even going to respond to this :rolleyes:

Um... that argument could destroy freedom everywhere, for everyone. Let's just keep people from making decisions at all. :whatever:

Thats not what I said at all. You dont have an argument because anybody who does it regularly knows what I said is true for a lot of people, so you just generalize to make my logic look bad? Ok :rolleyes:

[Kelly]

My main problem with the entire thing is not the legalization of it, but the fact that it smells like butt.......and I have enough trouble handling cigarette smoke.

Also, what are apartments going to do, start leasing apartments to non-pot and cigarette smokers?????

And what about all of those drug dogs.....will they be retrained.....?


I don't think I've read anywhere where a drug dog was untrained in a certain drug....I'm not sure that could happen....

How much weed can you smoke and still drive?

What if you smoked 3 days ago, but when you were tested after a car accident you still tested to high to drive.....??????

How much will it cost to equip police officers with the correct equipment????? Does the equipment even exist????

If legalization is to come, and I'm fine if it does..........a hell of alot of questions need to be answered before that happens. I sure as hell don't want to learn as we go along.....

[Gilpesh]

Thats not what I said at all. You dont have an argument because anybody who does it regularly knows what I said is true for a lot of people, so you just generalize to make my logic look bad? Ok :rolleyes:

You have no source to your claim that 'lots of people' make the same decision you do... and then say the government should stop people from making a decision that could end up being bad for them.

Um, and claiming I have no argument because you don't want show any numbers to a claim you made... is bull.

[Excel]

How much weed can you smoke and still drive

A lot.

[Excel]

You have no source to your claim that 'lots of people' make the same decision you do... and then say the government should stop people from making a decision that could end up being bad for them.

Um, and claiming I have no argument because you don't want show any numbers to a claim you made... is bull.

I dont need to numbers. You have a brain, use it. EVERYONE starts with weed. Any cokehead or heroin addict or whatever you can think all start with the same drug. The number of people who wouldnt do drugs at all if weed wasnt available to big to name; its a fact and everybody knows its a fact.

[moraldeficiency]

I've had my fun with parties.

I can see it now, "hey no smoking, drinking or drugs, the music will be at a reasonable level with nothing profane and I will designate who may speak to who"....."hey where is everyone going? Oh, well this is fun anyway!

Im not even going to respond to this :rolleyes:

And why should you, it's only the continution of your argument in addition to the goals of facisim. emoticons are cool.

Thats not what I said at all. You dont have an argument because anybody who does it regularly knows what I said is true for a lot of people, so you just generalize to make my logic look bad? Ok :rolleyes:

have you really spoken to everyone that does it regularly and know this or are you just saying based on the few people you know that partake? Wouldn't that be you generalizing?

[Kelly]

A lot.


Exceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellll.....my #1 numbers man, and you give me this answer?????????:o

[Gilpesh]

I dont need to numbers. You have a brain, use it. EVERYONE starts with weed. Any cokehead or heroin addict or whatever you can think all start with the same drug. The number of people who wouldnt do drugs at all if weed wasnt available to big to name; its a fact and everybody knows its a fact.

Then you could be so kind as to show the scientific study that proves weed MAKES you move up and EVERYONE who uses hard drugs 'started' with weed.

Also, not every 'starts' somewhere and ends up in an alley smoking crack. Some just skip ahead to heroin or coke.

[terry78]

I know whenever someone gives the "how can you decry it if you've never tried it" argument with, "I've never stabbed myself in the face either, and I know I wouldn't like it" type responses, but when it comes to marijuana, it honestly is not that black and white. It's difficult to get across, but it takes a little more research.

[Excel]

Some just skip ahead to heroin or coke.

Source?!?!?!?!?

[moraldeficiency]

My main problem with the entire thing is not the legalization of it, but the fact that it smells like butt.......and I have enough trouble handling cigarette smoke.

Also, what are apartments going to do, start leasing apartments to non-pot and cigarette smokers?????

And what about all of those drug dogs.....will they be retrained.....?


I don't think I've read anywhere where a drug dog was untrained in a certain drug....I'm not sure that could happen....

How much weed can you smoke and still drive?

What if you smoked 3 days ago, but when you were tested after a car accident you still tested to high to drive.....??????

How much will it cost to equip police officers with the correct equipment????? Does the equipment even exist????

If legalization is to come, and I'm fine if it does..........a hell of alot of questions need to be answered before that happens. I sure as hell don't want to learn as we go along.....


You're right about the smell, although it triggers a pavlovian response in myself.

As far as the apartments it wouldn't be any different than current restrictions for pets or smokers. Some would allow it some wouldn't and you would get to choose.

A good friend is a dog trainer so I can answer this (cause I've asked). You can't retrain the dogs. But this isn't as big a problem as you might think. Once legal, smuggling becomes unprofitable so that's out. Now maybe a dog picks up on someone's legal pot, fine they show it, the dog sniffs around for other things and if nothing you're on your way. Takes very little time. Newer generations wouldn't be trained to sniff for it and in ten years the problem is moot.

A recent study in amsterdam showed no correlation between hemp smoking and poor driving, also those in the US that get it legally especially from that program in the 70s drive while stoned all day long without incident. More studies should be done, but statistically a phone is probably worse for you to have.

Newer drug testing must take blood due to the newer drugs that don't show up. Eventually all drug testing has to go this way or become useless. Might as well get on that now, in fact maybe use the initial tax profits to pay for that. Free equiptment that works better and has more accuracy? Wins all around.

There would be growing pains, but you can say that about anything new. There would also be profits and advantages. A bit of thought is all it would require. Remember it wasn't too long ago that we relegalized alcohol and had to do this same dance with a far more dangerous drug without any of the equiptment we have today.

[Gilpesh]

Source?!?!?!?!?

:whatever:

Way to be a d**k when you can't back up your claim.

[Excel]

I can see it now, "hey no smoking, drinking or drugs, the music will be at a reasonable level with nothing profane and I will designate who may speak to who"....."hey where is everyone going? Oh, well this is fun anyway!

:hehe:

I've been a partier my whole life bro; I was a black kid in rich white town so I got away with dressing like a g and all that ****, I was the football n lax captain during high school; thats where I first expirienced alcoholism, weed, than oxycodone, than coke. You dont think I liked grinding to loud music n goin club hoppin; buddha runs, biddies n all that ****? There comes a time when it gets old and you grow out of it, and if that time doesnt hit you by the time your say, 26, your just a mess/slob/joke of a human. That ****s bad for you. Have your fun and move on.


have you really spoken to everyone that does it regularly and know this or are you just saying based on the few people you know that partake? Wouldn't that be you generalizing?


The few people I know that partake boy please for real who is this clown? moraldeficiency son you aint in a position to tell us bout drugs.

When I am deciding wether or not murder should be illegal am I gonna talk to Charles Manson for advice? No, so when Im trying to decide wether a drug should be illegal, Im not gonna talk somebody whose an addict fo it? Hell no.

[Excel]

:whatever:

Way to be a d**k when you can't back up your claim.

Now you seeing things my way; obviously some people skip ahead to both the same way the largeee majority start with weed; my point was you dont need a source when stating the obvious.

[Kelly]

You're right about the smell, although it triggers a pavlovian response in myself.
I get ill.....that's how I know the difference between pot smoke and some cigarettes....

As far as the apartments it wouldn't be any different than current restrictions for pets or smokers. Some would allow it some wouldn't and you would get to choose. You're right, BUT I do know from experience that cigarette smell is much easier to get out of carpet than weed smell.......I had to help clean my mom's rent house after my cousin lived in it.....lord have mercy.

A good friend is a dog trainer so I can answer this (cause I've asked). You can't retrain the dogs. But this isn't as big a problem as you might think. Once legal, smuggling becomes unprofitable so that's out. Now maybe a dog picks up on someone's legal pot, fine they show it, the dog sniffs around for other things and if nothing you're on your way. Takes very little time. Newer generations wouldn't be trained to sniff for it and in ten years the problem is moot. I was thinking more the problem of he dog smelling and going crazy (because they do get excited, I know this for a fact.......I had a student reduced to tears because she had gone to a concert the week before, and the dog went ape **** on her backpack when they did a random drug dog pass on my class.) But, if they can be retrained, then cool.

A recent study in amsterdam showed no correlation between hemp smoking and poor driving, also those in the US that get it legally especially from that program in the 70s drive while stoned all day long without incident. More studies should be done, but statistically a phone is probably worse for you to have. I'd really need to look at more data on this, but ok for now.

Newer drug testing must take blood due to the newer drugs that don't show up. Eventually all drug testing has to go this way or become useless. Might as well get on that now, in fact maybe use the initial tax profits to pay for that. Free equiptment that works better and has more accuracy? Wins all around.

There would be growing pains, but you can say that about anything new. There would also be profits and advantages. A bit of thought is all it would require. Remember it wasn't too long ago that we relegalized alcohol and had to do this same dance with a far more dangerous drug without any of the equiptment we have today.

True.....and I would just as soon not repeat the same dance....I want most all put in place before a law is signed......but that's just me.

[Gilpesh]

Now you seeing things my way; obviously some people skip ahead to both the same way the largeee majority start with weed; my point was you dont need a source when stating the obvious.

You also had a point about people not having the freedom to make bad decisions on their own and learning from their mistakes.

Just me pointing out the obvious. :whatever:

[CieloAzul]

I dont need to numbers. You have a brain, use it. EVERYONE starts with weed. Any cokehead or heroin addict or whatever you can think all start with the same drug. The number of people who wouldnt do drugs at all if weed wasnt available to big to name; its a fact and everybody knows its a fact.

You can't really say everyone starts with weed and that is why they move on to other drugs. If one uses their brain they'll realize that weed is highly accesable, and inexpensive, therefore it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that most drug addicts tried weed before they tried anything else.

[moraldeficiency]

:hehe:

I've been a partier my whole life bro; I was a black kid in rich white town so I got away with dressing like a g and all that ****, I was the football n lax captain during high school; thats where I first expirienced alcoholism, weed, than oxycodone, than coke. You dont think I liked grinding to loud music n goin club hoppin; buddha runs, biddies n all that ****? There comes a time when it gets old and you grow out of it, and if that time doesnt hit you by the time your say, 26, your just a mess/slob/joke of a human. That ****s bad for you. Have your fun and move on.

I love how everyone's a badass on the internet. I don't need your life history or story and it won't convince me about jack. It's just sad that after 26 you think it's either hard core drug use or nothing, no inbetween, no people capable of restraint. That must suck.

The few people I know that partake boy please for real who is this clown? moraldeficiency son you aint in a position to tell us bout drugs.

When I am deciding wether or not murder should be illegal am I gonna talk to Charles Manson for advice? No, so when Im trying to decide wether a drug should be illegal, Im not gonna talk somebody whose an addict fo it? Hell no.

As I'm a current user I'd say I'm in a better position than you are. Also as someone that's clearly vastly more educated on the subject I'd say I've got a little more ground than you there too.

Yeah, cause murder and drug use are relatable. If that's really what you've got, you should go read some more and come back. But I'll tell you what I'll follow you're logic train out of the station.....

If you're deciding whether murder should be illegal or not you should get a wide range of opinions on both sides of the issue. Why? Glad you asked, because sometimes like in self defense, war, or with ugly people murder is completely justified. If you kneejerk in any way you're bound to look like an ******* cause there's always an exception or mitigating circumstance.

Do me a favor though and tune down the "street talk from the 80's", you sound better when you're just making random statements without logic or facts to back you up. You're not sounding hard, you're not even sounding real, it's more like a white guy trying to sound black when they've never been around a black person (which apparently you haven't according to that bio you thrust on me there, playa).

[moraldeficiency]

I get ill.....that's how I know the difference between pot smoke and some cigarettes....

You're right, BUT I do know from experience that cigarette smell is much easier to get out of carpet than weed smell.......I had to help clean my mom's rent house after my cousin lived in it.....lord have mercy.

That's a fair point and also why I'm campaigning to have anyone with bad BO killed.

I was thinking more the problem of he dog smelling and going crazy (because they do get excited, I know this for a fact.......I had a student reduced to tears because she had gone to a concert the week before, and the dog went ape **** on her backpack when they did a random drug dog pass on my class.) But, if they can be retrained, then cool.

It could happen, I won't deny it. Generally the dogs are trained to just bark and indicate when they sniff something out.

I'd really need to look at more data on this, but ok for now.

That's the problem, there isn't much. There's experiences and the people from the 70s, and some testing done in europe. But the US outright refuses to do testing, mainly because it would invalidate a lot of that research sponsored by dupont in the 40s that was used to criminalize it to begin with.

True.....and I would just as soon not repeat the same dance....I want most all put in place before a law is signed......but that's just me.

It would need to be. Look I'm all for legalization but I'm not an idiot about it. Precautions would have to be made, but the way I figure it will eventually happen and when it does the US will save and make a good bit of money which we could use right now especially. In addition it would keep our nonviolent stoners out of a prison system that could only serve to harden them to violent crimes.

[EdRyder]

A recent study in amsterdam showed no correlation between hemp smoking and poor driving, also those in the US that get it legally especially from that program in the 70s drive while stoned all day long without incident. More studies should be done, but statistically a phone is probably worse for you to have.



Sorry I have to call bs on that.Its a half truth. Youre a smoker so Im sure youve either driven stoned or been in the car with a stoned driver.(as have I) From my experience, its becuase theyre stoned that the driver will pay more attention and make an extra effort to drive more carefully,be more alert. Out of either fear of an accident or getting pulled over.

Paranoia is a side effect of marijuana use not a side effect of it being illegal.

[moraldeficiency]

Sorry I have to call bs on that.Its a half truth. Youre a smoker so Im sure youve either driven stoned or been in the car with a stoned driver.(as have I) From my experience, its becuase theyre stoned that the driver will pay more attention and make an extra effort to drive more carefully,be more alert. Out of either fear of an accident or getting pulled over.

Paranoia is a side effect of marijuana use not a side effect of it being illegal.

That's exactely what the study showed. The more high people got the more attention they paid to driving because they were afraid they we're paying enough attention. I wasn't saying pot makes you a better driver, just that no out of character driving happed the way drinking effects you. I wasn't meaning to seem disingenous, the stuff you said was exactely what I saw, but I don't know how that makes it a half truth. More studies need to be done, but with substances known to impair driving like alcohol the results are crystal clear.

and yeah, I drive stoned pretty often.

[CieloAzul]

Originally Posted by Kel http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=15469433#post15469433)
I was thinking more the problem of he dog smelling and going crazy (because they do get excited, I know this for a fact.......I had a student reduced to tears because she had gone to a concert the week before, and the dog went ape **** on her backpack when they did a random drug dog pass on my class.) But, if they can be retrained, then cool.

What the ****? What kind of dog was it, because that really doesn't make any sense.

[Excel]

driving lit isnt challenging; not many things are.

[EdRyder]

Its an off study because its all dependent on the individual driver.I can think of at least three friends off the top of my head that I wouldnt let drive with me in the car while they were stoned.Hell, one of them I wouldnt even let ride my bike to the corner store if he was high.

[moraldeficiency]

Its an off study because its all dependent on the individual driver.I can think of at least three friends off the top of my head that I wouldnt let drive with me in the car while they were stoned.Hell, one of them I wouldnt even let ride my bike to the corner store if he was high.

most of those, if they're anything like the people I know in that same situation, shouldn't be driving or reproducing period. Though I would like a better study done seriously in this country. The problem being that the anti hemp laws are so serious the declaration of independence is an illegal document (it really is). So considering we're this myopic, the gov doesn't want to touch any studies to invalidate itself.

[CieloAzul]

Dont they have lotions and bags and ish made out of hemp, sold in the US?

[Kelly]

What the ****? What kind of dog was it, because that really doesn't make any sense.

These dogs get alittle on the slober side of excited when they find what they are looking for. I'm not talking like he goes crazy, as in jumping around, whatever.....he knows he's done good, and he gets excited. Slobers alot....lol, and waits for his handlers praise. He's damn good at what he does.....unfortunately in that case, alittle too good....lol

[Kelly]

In addition it would keep our nonviolent stoners out of a prison system that could only serve to harden them to violent crimes.

The problem with that is, there are few that are just repeat offenders of weed.....and even fewer that its their first time. Many of those are in for more than the use of the weed....but yeah, for the first timers, and even some that were maybe only selling weed nothing else....sure, let them out.

[Carcharodon]

Really? do you have some sources to back that up, as in proven historical data? That would be some interesting reading....Tenacious D already has this covered in their song, "The Government Totally Sucks":

Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed;
He liked to get naked while he smoked on the weed!

[The Lizard]

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Put it to a vote. If the majority wants it legal, fine with me.

I personally haven't felt the need to smoke pot so far in my life, and that's not going to change if it becomes legal. So, whatever.

[BlackLantern]

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Put it to a vote. If the majority wants it legal, fine with me.

I personally haven't felt the need to smoke pot so far in my life, and that's not going to change if it becomes legal. So, whatever.

Agreed....I'm just waiting until someone comes here and rants about 'reteaching the general public' and all that....

this is not some great cause people should rally behind, it's a recreational activity...

[Carcharodon]

this is not some great cause people should rally behind, it's a recreational activity.......that should never have been illegal in the first place. People feel that they are fighting for their right to legally participate in said activity. In their minds, it is a great cause, and a matter of liberty/freedom on some scale.

[BlackLantern]

....that should never have been illegal in the first place. People feel that they are fighting for their right to legally participate in said activity. In their minds, it is a great cause, and a matter of liberty/freedom on some scale.

...but it's not enough people to cause any real change, regardless of how many websites, pamphlets, and other crap made out of hemp, recycled or otherwise, that you lot attempt to peddle in pursuit of your great goal....

[Pluto]

Let's do it already! LOL!

[moraldeficiency]

The problem with that is, there are few that are just repeat offenders of weed.....and even fewer that its their first time. Many of those are in for more than the use of the weed....but yeah, for the first timers, and even some that were maybe only selling weed nothing else....sure, let them out.

It's not repeat weed offenders that I was talking about. I've had a few friends in the system, and if you put someone that's a stoner in prison with actual dangerous criminals they begin to emmulate them. When you get out, it's a very hard experience. You're used to scamming, lying and fighting for an extra freaking cookie and the only personal contact you've had were either criminals or guards that treated you like **** 24/7, your life is also majorly upended. It's almost hard not to become a violent criminal in this situation. Prison doesn't rehabilitate, doesn't really even try (I mean they do the freaking 12 steps in there for christsakes) it merely holds and lets criminals fester and learn from each other. I don't mind bad guys going, but decent people who like to get stoned? They either become victims or become predators and neither end serves justice or society in any form.

[moraldeficiency]

Agreed....I'm just waiting until someone comes here and rants about 'reteaching the general public' and all that....

this is not some great cause people should rally behind, it's a recreational activity...

That's silly. In the 40's people were retaught hemp was worse than heroin by hearst and dupont. So if you could foster that obvious lie to people in a far less informed age, telling the truth shouldn't be hard. You're not reteaching, you're correcting over 70 years of lies and disinformation that was the basis for the plastics industry which has caused massive envirnmental damage while at the same time fostering a society of criminals and criminal acts based on a substance far less harmful than so many legal ones.

I mean it's continued now to the point that in 2002 the declaration of independence is now consider an illegal drug substance. Can you even moderately justify that?

It's not causes to rally behind, it's just not treating people like idiots you manipulate because some company didn't want competition with a market. It's just telling the truth, the US has a history of waiting a long long time before it admits to mistakes and treating its citizens like retarded children, (slavery, women's rights, voting rights, about half the wars it's had, etc) but eventually we come around and the truth gets out. It's just hard for the gov. to admit it lied and abused public trust for money and has been covering up that lie for decades.

[Kelly]

I would rather this go state to state, and let the people speak through their vote. I would be TOTALLY for it, if I knew beyond a doubt that the majority of the people wanted it legalized, AND that would go a long way in getting the kinks out, faster.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Id still like someone to explaine how the Dutch society hasnt collapsed due to health and psychological issues since this substance is legal there and removed from drug dealers.

I agreed with the beginnign of pineapple express. People have been smoking for decades and they arent going to stop any time soon, but because its illegal those same people are forced to be in contact with real life drug dealers and we all know how akward that is. All of that to be able to obtain a dry leaf of a ****ing plant. what a joke.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I also think that a general vote on it is the stupidest thing that someone could think of to solve this issue. The problem with all of this is MISINFORMATION on the matter so people are going to vote depending on what pre-disposition they have towards it. Regardless of wether it is well founded or not.

This can only be determined by actual FACTS and not by a stupid popularity vote: 1. Can this substance be truthfully categorized as a streed drug in terms of addiction and health problems(or is it more like a freaking muscle relaxant)?. 2. Is it physically addictive?

The only reason they arent making it legal is because they cant be bothered with it since it will be almost impossible to tax it as a damn plant can be grown just about anywhere including your own backyard.

[SoulManX]

Honestly I think that all drugs should be legal and let people in their homes do what they feel as long as they are not hurting other people.

[Kelly]

Honestly I think that all drugs should be legal and let people in their homes do what they feel as long as they are not hurting other people.


Well, theres your problem....

People, don't stay in their homes, and they do hurt people. Have you seen someone on a bad LSD trip? I have, its one of the most terrifying things I ever seen........AND, it was in my home........

[SoulManX]

Well, theres your problem....

People, don't stay in their homes, and they do hurt people. Have you seen someone on a bad LSD trip? I have, its one of the most terrifying things I ever seen........AND, it was in my home........


I see...well I still stand by what i believe. Sorry for your bad trip hope your next one will be better.

[Kelly]

I see...well I still stand by what i believe. Sorry for your bad trip hope your next one will be better.



It wasn't me, it was a friend.....and had that friend had a gun, knife, car.....someone would have been hurt.


Sorry, but your belief, will get people killed.

I'm fine with the legalization of marijuana, but your desire to legalize all drugs shows that you have little knowledge of many of those drugs you want to legalize.

[BlackLantern]

The last time I served jury duty was in the very short preceding of a meth/heroin addict who had robbed a church to support his habit....

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Honestly I think that all drugs should be legal and let people in their homes do what they feel as long as they are not hurting other people.

I disagree. There are drugs and substances that become addictive and beyond the moral and personal control of the human body. Dont get me wrong, drugs do ruin lives. However marijuana isnt a drug in that sense.

I think we live on a society that is continuosly drugged on legal meds, and that can obtain heavily addictive and factually harmful substances just by stepping on a bar or a gas station. There is a certain hidden hyprocrisy in all of this.

[terry78]

http://joshreads.com/images/08/08/i080825bc.gif

[Fading]

I voted yes.

Speaking from my own experience I found nothing harmful in it at all. After graduating High School I was introduced to pot by a co worker. I smoked occasionally on weekends with him, and honestly loved it. I didn't get the urge to drive, or kill, or any other of the myths that surround pot. I didn't develop a mental disorder, or suffer any loss in motor skills or higher brain functions. After that first year I occassionally smoked with my best friends. However I haven't smoked it in over 3 years and have 0 urge to.

Some ppl will abuse it, and some ppl will react negatively to it as well. However ppl currently abuse alcohol, and ppl currently have allergies to shell fish and can die from eating a lobster. It's all in moderation, you don't abuse any alchol, and don't inhale greasy fatty fried foods nonstop. You also should check with a doctor if you feel negative reactions from something as you should know what your body can and can't take.

Again tho this is just my personal experience with it.

[Fading]

As for what it would do for society, I still agree with it. Revenue from it would go back into the system rather than in drug dealer pockets. Ppl would be less inclined to do illegal activities to obtain it. It would free up the courts and get rid of many uneeded trials, and again that would put money back in tax payer wallets.

Obviously there will be ppl who abuse, but then again ppl find a way to abuse anything. I mean if ppl thought of inhaling battery acid, lighter fluid and whatever else goes in meth, then of course there will be ppl who abuse this. Same can be said of alcohol, but it's legal.

[Sentinel X]

I don't know who came up with the assumption that because pot is 'natural' that it is good for you. Its chemical composition is still not compatible with the human body. It effects your neurotransmitter levels, why legalize something thats screwing up your brain chemistry!
We all do illegal things(and whatever thats your choice)...if you still want to smoke pot go ahead and do so but why legalize it, that would just attract young children to go try pot. There is no reason to legalize something that depletes your memory, the whole point of society is to improve it and so our children(I don't have any yet obviously) can have a better future...how does legalizing marajuana help any of that?...it doesn't so whats the point?

[moraldeficiency]

I don't know who came up with the assumption that because pot is 'natural' that it is good for you. Its chemical composition is still not compatible with the human body. It effects your neurotransmitter levels, why legalize something thats screwing up your brain chemistry!
We all do illegal things(and whatever thats your choice)...if you still want to smoke pot go ahead and do so but why legalize it, that would just attract young children to go try pot. There is no reason to legalize something that depletes your memory, the whole point of society is to improve it and so our children(I don't have any yet obviously) can have a better future...how does legalizing marajuana help any of that?...it doesn't so whats the point?

I don't think anyone is asserting pot is good for you because it's natural. It's a drug, like asprin, caffine, niccotine, etc. Oh, heavens our brain chemisty is being damaged? One, there's enough crap in the air right now doing that to all of us. Two most of the substances you ingest do that to some level, some significantly more than pot. Stimulants in paticular have some nasty long term effects. Coffee anyone? Three we've already legalized and use far worse drugs to treat everything from actual problems to unlikable personalities, if pot could do the same job with less detrement, why not use it instead?

Gotta disagree. You want kids to try something? All you have to do is forbid it. It was harder for me to get alcohol at 14 then pot. You know why? Since pot was already illegal any dealer will sell to anyone no biggie, but when you have a controlled substance you can control it's distribution. Sure it's still possible for kids to get pot, but it would be from a controlled source with established protocols, better than the crap shoot you get today.

If we only did things that bettered society, we wouldn't be here right now. Hemp would bring in massive tax dollars which could help society, it would drastically reduce nonviolent criminal offenders, unburden our court and prison systems, take money away from actual criminals, show common sense and make the declaration of independence legal again. Are you against all of that? If you are, you should start campaigning to make alcohol illegal, it does far more damage in the areas you care about than hemp ever could.

[Sentinel X]

I don't think anyone is asserting pot is good for you because it's natural. It's a drug, like asprin, caffine, niccotine, etc. Oh, heavens our brain chemisty is being damaged? One, there's enough crap in the air right now doing that to all of us. Two most of the substances you ingest do that to some level, some significantly more than pot. Stimulants in paticular have some nasty long term effects. Coffee anyone? Three we've already legalized and use far worse drugs to treat everything from actual problems to unlikable personalities, if pot could do the same job with less detrement, why not use it instead?

Actually they have. There are many people who are uninformed who hear a lot of other people say 'hey pot isn't that bad it should be legalized' and they think 'you know what maybe pot is good for you'

And how selfish of you to think it should be legalized because it isn't that bad and there are other things that can damage our brain chemistry. Are you kidding me?
Sure there are legalized drugs with more damaging effects but those drugs are for prescription (kind of like how people use medical marijuana) it is NOT AT ALL like people smoking weed just to feel a temporary high and laugh at inanimate objects with friends


Gotta disagree. You want kids to try something? All you have to do is forbid it. It was harder for me to get alcohol at 14 then pot. You know why? Since pot was already illegal any dealer will sell to anyone no biggie, but when you have a controlled substance you can control it's distribution. Sure it's still possible for kids to get pot, but it would be from a controlled source with established protocols, better than the crap shoot you get today.

Haha! So when pot is legal it'll make things so much better. Suddenly things will get "fixed" and all kids under 21(or what ever the age limit shall be) will stop smoking weed. :o
Having marajuana legalized would make more people use it not less...just like having it banned makes less people inclined to use it. Its really a simple concept. There will always be people who want to do illegal stuff, some for the sake of it just being illegal but most people will be discouraged to try marijuana if it is illegal then they would if it was legal.


If we only did things that bettered society, we wouldn't be here right now. Hemp would bring in massive tax dollars which could help society, it would drastically reduce nonviolent criminal offenders, unburden our court and prison systems, take money away from actual criminals, show common sense and make the declaration of independence legal again. Are you against all of that? If you are, you should start campaigning to make alcohol illegal, it does far more damage in the areas you care about than hemp ever could.Bettering society by legalizing a drug that messes with the brain's neurotransmitters and has evidence of depleting a person's immune system?...you call that helping society?

I'm sorry but the US government has so much more important things to focus on then legalizing marijuana. If they want to improve society how about improving education, health care, etc...legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with creating a better society.

I just don't see a point of making it legal, it isn't helping anything ,a lot of potheads just want it legalized so they could smoke openly...but not to make society a better place, that is just laughable excuse :hehe:

Seriously weed isn't that hard to get, if you feel that inclined to smoke it (which is unfortunate, in my opinion) then feel free to do so (just don't get caught) but legalizing it so people can have easier access to it is a step back in terms of 'improving our society'

[lazur]

I haven't heard anyone state that pot is 'good' for you. However, pot does have a LOT of medicinal properties that make consumption of the prescribed amount beneficial. At the most, pot is benign - not 'harmful' as some here have claimed ...

[TheGreenMeanie]

Its time to legalize it. They're aren't stopping people from trying it and it isn't as harmful as some of the legal products out there. Slap on a tax and let it be already.

[Sentinel X]

I haven't heard anyone state that pot is 'good' for you. However, pot does have a LOT of medicinal properties that make consumption of the prescribed amount beneficial. At the most, pot is benign - not 'harmful' as some here have claimed ...Its the sad truth. Some people are uninformed of the health hazzards of smoking pot.They also beleive that weed is a magical aphrodisiac and can inhance creativity. And I agree, I'm totally for medical marijuana...but like any other medicine people need a prescription to get it...because like any other medicine when they don't, using it is harmful

Its time to legalize it. They're aren't stopping people from trying it and it isn't as harmful as some of the legal products out there. Slap on a tax and let it be already.No...people aren't stopped from trying it. Isn't that a great thing for current potheads?:o...potheads can go smoke, I knew a couple of people that smoked weed, some kids even smoked it AT school...its pretty easy not to get caught. However keeping it illegal does discourage people from trying it and that is much more important than legalizing weed just so you can smoke without worrying that your mom or the cops will catch you.

And sure there are substances out there that are more harmful, Im sure...but since when does two wrongs make a right. You want our government to have more problems then it already has?

[lazur]

Its the sad truth. Some people are uninformed of the health hazzards of smoking pot.They also beleive that weed is a magical aphrodisiac and can inhance creativity. And I agree, I'm totally for medical marijuana...but like any other medicine people need a prescription to get it...because like any other medicine when they don't, using it is harmful

No...people aren't stopped from trying it. Isn't that a great thing for current potheads?:o...potheads can go smoke, I knew a couple of people that smoked weed, some kids even smoked it AT school...its pretty easy not to get caught. However keeping it illegal does discourage people from trying it and that is much more important than legalizing weed just so you can smoke without worrying that your mom or the cops will catch you.

And sure there are substances out there that are more harmful, Im sure...but since when does two wrongs make a right. You want our government to have more problems then it already has?

You would be hard-pressed to find medical evidence of any kind that deems THC harmful. Sure, smoking is smoking - inhaling smoke (any smoke) into your lungs can't be all that healthy. However, THC can be consumed without having to smoke it.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on how THC is unhealthy or harmful to people since it's the only drug in the world a human being can't actually OD on (you'd have to consume something like twice your body weight to OD), and since it's often prescribed to medicate horrible diseases.

Point being, it's not as bad as you're attempting to make it sound, but I'd be interested in hearing why you feel the way you do...

[Spider-Bite]

well marijuana does contain may carcinegens. Marijuana does have some harmful side effects to one's health, they just aren't as severe as cigarettes or alcohol.

[BlackLantern]

well marijuana does contain may carcinegens. Marijuana does have some harmful side effects to one's health, they just aren't as severe as cigarettes or alcohol.

Just because they aren't as severe isn't grounds enough to legalize it...I will concede that part of the reason it is illegal is because it isn't something easily controllable by the government...it's a lot easier to grow weed than it is to grow tobacco or manufacture alcohol...but only part

[Sentinel X]

You would be hard-pressed to find medical evidence of any kind that deems THC harmful. Sure, smoking is smoking - inhaling smoke (any smoke) into your lungs can't be all that healthy. However, THC can be consumed without having to smoke it.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on how THC is unhealthy or harmful to people since it's the only drug in the world a human being can't actually OD on (you'd have to consume something like twice your body weight to OD), and since it's often prescribed to medicate horrible diseases.

Point being, it's not as bad as you're attempting to make it sound, but I'd be interested in hearing why you feel the way you do...
Lets say that the government legalized marijuana so that people were to take mary jane in a "healthier" way by not smoking it...you honestly think people wouldn't smoke it? :huh:
Secondly, I'm not out there to make MJ sound bad, I'm not attempting that AT ALL...what I'm attempting to say is why legalize something that is not creating a better future for America. How does weed help make a better society? We already have alcohol and cigarettes, do we need to add to the list of substances that have had mostly negative effects on the US population? :dry:

Here is the first link I found on google about health related hazzards that come with the intake of weed:



What are some of the immediate effects of smoking marijuana?
Some immediate physical effects of marijuana include a faster heartbeat and pulse rate, bloodshot eyes, and a dry mouth and throat. No scientific evidence indicates that marijuana improves hearing, eyesight, and skin sensitivity. Studies of marijuana's mental effects show that the drug can impair or reduce short-term memory, alter sense of time, and reduce ability to do things which require concentration, swift reactions, and coordination, such as driving a car or operating machinery.
Are there any other adverse reactions to marijuana?
A common bad reaction to marijuana is the "acute panic anxiety reaction." People describe this reaction as an extreme fear of "losing control," which causes panic. The symptoms usually disappear in a few hours.
What about psychological dependence on marijuana?
Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives.
What are the dangers for young people?
One major concern about marijuana is its possible effects on young people as they grow up. Research shows that the earlier people start using drugs, the more likely they are to go on to experiment with other drugs. In addition, when young people start using marijuana regularly, they often lose interest and are not motivated to do their schoolwork. The effects of marijuana can interfere with learning by impairing thinking, reading comprehension, and verbal and mathematical skills. Research shows that students do not remember what they have learned when they are "high".
How does marijuana affect driving ability?
Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road.
Does marijuana affect the human reproductive system?
Some research studies suggest that the use of marijuana during pregnancy may result in premature babies and in low birth weights. Studies of men and women may have a temporary loss of fertility. These findings suggest that marijuana may be especially harmful during adolescence, a period of rapid physical and sexual development.
How does marijuana affect the heart?
Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does.
How does marijuana affect the lungs?
Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same ingredients in tobacco smoke that can cause emphysema and cancer. In addition, many marijuana users also smoke cigarettes; the combined effects of smoking these two substances creates an increased health risk.
Can marijuana cause cancer?
Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years.
How are people usually introduced to marijuana?
Many young people are introduced to marijuana by their peers - usually acquaintances, friends, sisters, and brothers. People often try drugs such as marijuana because they feel pressured by peers to be part of the group. Children must be taught how to say no to peer pressure to try drugs. Parents can get involved by becoming informed about marijuana and by talking to their children about drug use.
What is marijuana "burnout"?
"Burnout" is a term first used by marijuana smokers themselves to describe the effect of prolonged use. Young people who smoke marijuana heavily over long periods of time can become dull, slow moving, and inattentive. These "burned-out" users are sometimes so unaware of their surroundings that they do not respond when friends speak to them, and they do not realize they have a problem. How long do chemicals from marijuana stay in the body after the drug is smoked?
When marijuana is smoked, THC, its active ingredient, is absorbed by most tissues and organs in the body; however, it is primarily found in fat tissues. The body, in its attempt to rid itself of the foreign chemical, chemically transforms the THC into metabolites. Urine tests can detect THC metabolites for up to a week after people have smoked marijuana. Tests involving radioactively labeled THC have traced these metabolites in animals for up to a month.



http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm



Finally, since when does 'you cannot overdose on weed' = healthy? So I can't overdose on it (I don't know anyone who would consume 1/3 of their body weight worth of weed in one sitting :dry: ) that does mean it should be legalized.
As I've said I am ALL for medical marijuana. If you have a prescription then by all means get it!...but for that purpose only (and that isn't the issue of this thread. The issue is legalizing weed for the general public). If you have an illness and the doctor prescribes MJ then sure but if you don't then no....the same goes for ANY drug that is needed. Certain medical drugs can only be prescribed by a doctor and the general public has no access to them outside of the medical domain.
Bottom line is that weed consumers will continue to consume weed! As someone stated earlier I would be all for decriminalizing MJ but legalizing it when it doesn't help improve society is just bogus.

[Tron5000]

I was out in LA last week, and as I was walking down Venice Beach this lady was holding cards in the air shouting about "Medical Marijuana Upstairs! Headaches, migraines, nausea..." So I asked her if it was really that easy. She said, "Do you have a headache or anything?" I replied that I did, actually, have a bit of a headache (spending time with the fiancee's parents can do that to you), and she was like, "Just go upstairs. We'll take care of that for you." I didn't go upstairs, but I found it very interesting.

[TheGreenMeanie]

Pot never took away my headaches. It always gave me one, but only if I smoked during the day...

[JLBats]

I was out in LA last week, and as I was walking down Venice Beach this lady was holding cards in the air shouting about "Medical Marijuana Upstairs! Headaches, migraines, nausea..." So I asked her if it was really that easy. She said, "Do you have a headache or anything?" I replied that I did, actually, have a bit of a headache (spending time with the fiancee's parents can do that to you), and she was like, "Just go upstairs. We'll take care of that for you." I didn't go upstairs, but I found it very interesting.

I want to plot graph this story.

[JLBats]

Having grown up in an education system that reeked of weed, the outlawing of it has always seemed visciously arbitrary to me.

[lazur]

well marijuana does contain may carcinegens. Marijuana does have some harmful side effects to one's health, they just aren't as severe as cigarettes or alcohol.

Carcinogens exist when you SMOKE marijuana. You do not need to smoke marijuana to consume it. You can also cook it.

The discussion, as far as I can tell, is about whether or not THC is harmful to the human body. The answer is no if you choose to consume it in ways other than through burning and inhaling smoke.

[Oddzball]

I don't see why Pot was Illegal in the first place.




http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/980420.html
Harry Alsinger was the original US "Drug Czar" who. referring to it as
this "lethal weed", was the prime mover in having marijuana outlawed
by the US Congress in 1937, falsely categorised as a narcotic, and
having the users subjected to the same criminal sanctions as those
imposed on heroin and cocaine.
Alsinger was a Federal Treasury official who was looking at heavy staff cuts after prohibition was repealed. He decided marijauana would be a great substitute IF he could get it banned. That's the basics of how Marijuana became illegal.
Why it remains illegal is testimony to the power of Bureaucratic Inertia.

[Sentinel X]

Carcinogens exist when you SMOKE marijuana. You do not need to smoke marijuana to consume it. You can also cook it.

The discussion, as far as I can tell, is about whether or not THC is harmful to the human body. The answer is no if you choose to consume it in ways other than through burning and inhaling smoke.Do you think the government is going to go "Hey MJ is legal...as long as you cook it and not smoke it"? You think that makes sense?....and do you honestly think people are going to listen? :whatever:

And lets assume, as absurd as it sounds, that the government does legalize MJ and people only consume it...It still has the same effects on the brain. So people won't have so much of a problem with the carcinogens and heart problems...there are still negative symptoms there however...it just doesn't disappear.

People who want to legalize MJ are selfish individuals who don't want to worry about getting caught, they don't care what happens to the society its all about "me smoking without having to worry...oh yeah :cool:" and I think thats insane. :o

[The Chairman]

People who want to legalize MJ are selfish individuals who don't want to worry about getting caught, they don't care what happens to the society its all about "me smoking without having to worry...oh yeah :cool:" and I think thats insane. :o

Wow, what a harsh, rash generalization. You're either incredibly stupid or unequivocally ignorant. Whichever one you are, you're so wrong on this subject that it's honestly laughable.

[Sentinel X]

Yes, I am both stupid and ignorant...that is why scientist and medical doctors have found through studies that MJ does have negative effects on the human body but hey if people want to agree with you then thats fine because I'm sure you know A LOT more then those scientist and doctors. I gladly join them as the 'incredibly stupid' and 'unequivocally ignorant' group :whatever:

I speak my honest opinion in a thread that debates about legalizing marijuana. If you feel thats a reason to try and insult my intelligence and jeer me then I'll honestly tell you to go **** yourself. :up:

[Franklin Richards]

Isn't it hypocritical to have alcohol legal and not pot though?

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

Yale and UConn here in Connecticut are doing studies on people who have been long term smokers....

[Spidey-Bat]

Yes, I am both stupid and ignorant...that is why scientist and medical doctors have found through studies that MJ does have negative effects on the human body but hey if people want to agree with you then thats fine because I'm sure you know A LOT more then those scientist and doctors. I gladly join them as the 'incredibly stupid' and 'unequivocally ignorant' group :whatever:

I speak my honest opinion in a thread that debates about legalizing marijuana. If you feel thats a reason to try and insult my intelligence and jeer me then I'll honestly tell you to go **** yourself. :up:

And what are those negative health effects? How much marijuana must one smoke for them to take effect? And for how long? Do you actually know the details of these studies?

I'm sure you think cigerettes and alcohol should also be made illegal considering they have even greater negative effects on one's health.

[The Chairman]

I speak my honest opinion in a thread that debates about legalizing marijuana. If you feel thats a reason to try and insult my intelligence and jeer me then I'll honestly tell you to go **** yourself. :up:

In that particualr post, you did not merely state your opinion. You made an incredibly harsh generalization about a group of people simply fighting for a personal freedom that should have been granted over 30 years ago. So I guess women who champion abortion rights are selfish individuals who do their best to avoid personal responsibility?

[BlackLantern]

In that particualr post, you did not merely state your opinion. You made an incredibly harsh generalization about a group of people simply fighting for a personal freedom that should have been granted over 30 years ago. So I guess women who champion abortion rights are selfish individuals who do their best to avoid personal responsibility?

Should have? should have? according to who?? My issue is that in most Americans lives, this is not a vital issue....This is not some great cause to be championed....

[Franklin Richards]

Civil liberties aren't a big deal? Millions of people imprisoned? Chronyism? Wasted money on the war on "drugs"?

Seems like a moderate deal to me.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[chaseter]

Why legalize something else that will impair you?

[chaseter]

Isn't it hypocritical to have alcohol legal and not pot though?

:thing: :doom: :thing:
Alcohol was needed before the 19th and early 20th century because most sources of water were contaminated. Beer, wine, and other forms of alcohol were the only source for a safe drink.

[BlackLantern]

The term "cronyism" is getting way way overused....just because something is going on YOU don't like doesn't make it cronyism...

[The Chairman]

Why legalize something else that will impair you?

Because there is a far lesser chance of marijuna impairing you than alcohol?

[The Chairman]

Alcohol was needed before the 19th and early 20th century because most sources of water were contaminated. Beer, wine, and other forms of alcohol were the only source for a safe drink.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

For the record, I'm not against alcohol. In fact, I drink beer far more often than I smoke pot. But I do realize alcohol is a heck of a lot more dangerous than pot, and limit my booze intake to special occasions.

[Franklin Richards]

Alcohol was needed before the 19th and early 20th century because most sources of water were contaminated. Beer, wine, and other forms of alcohol were the only source for a safe drink.

And hemp was needed for paper and constitutions and flags. What's your point?


This is the 21'st century.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Sandman138]

Do you think the government is going to go "Hey MJ is legal...as long as you cook it and not smoke it"? You think that makes sense?....and do you honestly think people are going to listen? :whatever:

Yet cigarettes remain perfectly legal even though many people do not heed the Surgeon General's warning. Now, I'm proud to be in my second month without a cigarette and I would advise everyone that doesn't smoke to stay away from the habit to begin with, but I'm not about to ban it or demonize the smokers because for all the detrimental effects cigarettes had some very practical uses for me and those I know. It made getting through the day much more manageable and I must confess that since I have quit it has become much harder for me to overcome my own anxieties; but the important thing here is that I made the choice about what was in my best interest. I decided that the negative effects on my body of a pack a day far outweighed its positive effects on my productivity and self-efficacy. Yet I recognize that this may not be the case for many other people and what is best for me is not necessarily an objective standard of what is "best". This is not to say that all things are consequentially relative nor that we are only accountable to ourselves, but that individuals vary by nature and should have the ability find what works for them within reasonable bounds. Now, when it comes to marijuana specifically, it seems that you see the boundaries that have been set by Government and society at large as reasonable. I, on the other hand, find the reasons to be suspect and contradictory to current policy concerning controlled substances.

And lets assume, as absurd as it sounds, that the government does legalize MJ and people only consume it...It still has the same effects on the brain. So people won't have so much of a problem with the carcinogens and heart problems...there are still negative symptoms there however...it just doesn't disappear.

Everything affects the brain in a multitude of ways. Eating food, having sex, exercising, etc. all alter the chemical makeup of the brain. That is, so far as we can tell, what creates consciousness. The question is not whether THC and marijuana affect brain chemistry, the question is whether these effects are categorically "bad". Now, I'm not sure what symptoms I should address here, but based on the list you posted earlier and the implication that we are dealing with psychological phenomenon only, I am going to address what seems to be the big issue on that field: psychological dependence.I am not going to deny that it exists. I myself have at differing times been psychologically dependent on Marijuana. I have also been psychologically dependent on masturbation and pornography, television, and the internet (and even though nicotine actually has been shown to create physical dependency I would say that, subjectively, I think my own addiction had more to do with a psychological addiction to the act of smoking itself). My mother is psychologically addicted to chocolate and other comfort foods. All of these things, when taken to excess, can be incredibly detrimental in a multitude of ways. However, none of them are beyond mediation and the literature doesn't support the assertion that marijuana is any different. Thus, I find this reason behind outlawing marijuanna to be contradictory to our policies.
Meanwhile, while THC alters and, within certain contexts, impairs consciousness, so does alcohol and a myriad of over the counter drugs yet they remain perfectly legal. We don't hold those who imbibe responsibly responsible for drunk drivers. I would hope we can agree that to do so would be absurd and unjust. This doesn't mean that we don't hold drunk drivers responsible for their actions. People who use pot irresponsibly should face the consequences of their actions be they economic or criminal; but making any use of marijuana illegal turns otherwise productive members of society into outlaws of a notorious variety and that is neither reasonable or just.

People who want to legalize MJ are selfish individuals who don't want to worry about getting caught, they don't care what happens to the society its all about "me smoking without having to worry...oh yeah :cool:" and I think thats insane. :o

There are quite a few teetotalers who find the US policy on marijuana to be unjust. Your stance can't explain organizations such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and while I'm not going to deny that the sentiment you describe is a motivating factor for a lot of people who smoke pot it is far from the only one, or even the most pressing one. Your generalization is unfounded and unfalsifiable and, as such, I find it a poor pole star for public policy.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Everytime I see people discussing pot legalization, some of the people that are against it always use the harm the substance brings as a counter point. But what damage is there? Shouldnt there be marijuana deaths and homeless marijuana addicts out in the streets considering the massive ammount of consumption there is out there? Most people that are strongly against it have never even tried it and use their perception of what they think the drug is as an argument. It is the lack of public and real information about the substance that is out there that is the problem with this today. I wish the goverments were honest with the people and told the actual facts and performed official studies on the matter to share with the public. Its just dumb that so much money gets wasted from the law sector on prosecuting people with this. Its is also because of this that millions of dollars end up on the pockets of real criminals a year. A change has to happen sooner or later I hope.

and btw, marijuana is not physically addictive and you will not get the shakes if you dont smoke it. If you want to use the psychological addiction angle on the matter, I recomend you look at how many times you press the refresh button on your browser a day probably on this forum alone to really see that psychological addiction can apply to literally ANYTHING that is enjoyable.

[Hobodeluxe]

far too much of our tax money is used to fight a drug that is safer than alcohol.
we incarcerate a higher % of our people than any first world country.
Legalize it and you take the criminal element out if it. take money away from drug dealers.
Make prison space for real criminals.
Philip Morris would sell packs of them just like cigs and you could tax the crap out of it to pay for other ,more needed things.

[Fading]

Pot really does hold such a strong reputation as 'being bad' that it really can cloud and polorize the issue. We have pregnancy medications that can give heart attacks, headache medicines that can cause strokes, too much sugar can lead to diabetes, alcohol and cigarrettes both cause more damage than pot. Yet all the above are legal, yet pot's the one thing that never should be legal because "it could possibly do x".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it should be able to be smoked on the street. I mean hell, I don't like ppl blowing cigarrette smoke in my face, and I'm sure parents don't like random guys gulping beer in front of their kids on the street. What I personally would want is for it to be legal to carry a certain amount, and for you to be able to smoke it in your own home, or an establishment that allows it.

It's funny that sometimes it gets treated like it's been a banned substance since the beginning of time. Yet it's still legal in Amsterdam, and had heavy trade and useage in the US's past.

[Marx]

MEDICAL MARIJUANA NOW LEGALIZED IN MICHIGAN, BUT RULES UNCLEAR
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/04/medical-marijuana-now-leg_n_148583.html

[StorminNorman]

So...

Whose up for a road trip?

[moraldeficiency]

shotgun.

[Marx]

So...

Whose up for a road trip?

shotgun.

:funny:

[XpunkRocker]

it should be legalized. it is less harmful than cigarretts and alchohol. And it is less addicting and less troubling.

[The Incredible Hulk]

MEDICAL MARIJUANA NOW LEGALIZED IN MICHIGAN, BUT RULES UNCLEAR
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/04/medical-marijuana-now-leg_n_148583.html


at last MI catches a break. At least now you can light up a J while having to suffer through the cold weather, being unemployed, and the Lions.

[Timstuff]

It is a complicated issue. I do not smoke pot and I am against it, just like I am against smoking cigarettes and getting drunk. However, as much as I dislike pot, all that our strict probation on it has really done is funnel money into the pockets of drug lords. I myself may be against the substance, but if there's one thing that I can agree to is that people have the right to screw up their lives without the government getting in their way (unless they are minors, in which case they are usually too stupid to make their own decisions to begin with).

If pot becomes legal, we should still have strict laws about using it in public, and being high in public. I don't really care what people do in their own homes, but I do not want to have to get a whiff of someone else's dooby while I'm walking down the street. Second hand cigarette smoke is more hazardous to your long term health, but it does not get other people high. Also, the rules that our schools have about pot should remain unchanged even if the substance itself becomes legal, and students should be educated about the adverse affects it can have on your life just like with tobacco and alchohol.

I don't think that there's really much hope of escaping the possibility of pot becoming legal. I may not like it personally, but as long as people are not going subject me or my family to their habits, then I don't really care what they do in their own homes. The fact that by nature it's an airborn drug means that smoking it in public should be out of the question, and there needs to be zero tolerance in regards to driving under the influence of pot. Having said all that, I think that the most ideal compromise would be for marijuana to be a legal, but very regulated substance. If people are going to spend their life savings on pot, we might as well be collecting tax revenue on it.

[souvlaki]

Everytime I see people discussing pot legalization, some of the people that are against it always use the harm the substance brings as a counter point. But what damage is there? Shouldnt there be marijuana deaths and homeless marijuana addicts out in the streets considering the massive ammount of consumption there is out there? Most people that are strongly against it have never even tried it and use their perception of what they think the drug is as an argument. It is the lack of public and real information about the substance that is out there that is the problem with this today. I wish the goverments were honest with the people and told the actual facts and performed official studies on the matter to share with the public. Its just dumb that so much money gets wasted from the law sector on prosecuting people with this. Its is also because of this that millions of dollars end up on the pockets of real criminals a year. A change has to happen sooner or later I hope.

and btw, marijuana is not physically addictive and you will not get the shakes if you dont smoke it. If you want to use the psychological addiction angle on the matter, I recomend you look at how many times you press the refresh button on your browser a day probably on this forum alone to really see that psychological addiction can apply to literally ANYTHING that is enjoyable.

wow. I agree completely. Especially when it comes to psychological addiction. Yes, there are people that abuse marijuana, same as they abuse any number of things but the important distinction is that it's a psychological addiction, not a physical addiction. I don't have a problem with alcohol or cigarettes being legal but it seems a bit hypocritical to outlaw arguably the safest of these three drugs yet keep the other two perfectly legal as long as you are a responsible adult.

[amazingfantasy15]

I think it should be legal and treated just like alcohol. Can't be smoked on the street or anything, only in controlled enviroments like bars or your home, gotta be "x" age to buy it, all that. It's stupid that it's not legal, all it does is wasted money, on the criminals in prison for pot, it's role in the war on drugs and the taxes we're missing out on collecting.

[souvlaki]

If pot becomes legal, we should still have strict laws about using it in public, and being high in public. I don't really care what people do in their own homes, but I do not want to have to get a whiff of someone else's dooby while I'm walking down the street. Second hand cigarette smoke is more hazardous to your long term health, but it does not get other people high.

I agree with everything else in your post, and for the most part agree with this as well but you do realize just how much smoke has to be in a room in order for you to get even a slight buzz from second hand smoke, right? And outside your chances are virtually impossible unless you have someone standing infront of you blowing it in your face for like ten minutes straight. It's probably not very likely that you would get a contact high from someone walking down the street.

That being said, I'm not keen on the idea of smoking in public either, but I don't think there should be restrictions on smoking outside as long as it's not in a public place around a lot of people. After all, like smoking cigarettes some people just dont like smoking in doors if they can help it. If people want to smoke in their backyard, or in front of their house as long as they are not operating a vehicle then I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't want someone telling me to smoke a cigarette indoors, and when I'm smoking I always make a conscience effort not to smoke around other people (unless I know them, obviously) so as long people have the same respect when they smoke weed then I don't have much a problem with it.

[Timstuff]

Public property would mean things like smoking at places like a mall or a restaurant. And chances are that unless you either walked to a public area or had a ride, you would haved driven there, and if you smoked pot between the time that you drove to a place and the time that you left, chances are you'll still be under the influence when you start your car up again. If you're on privately-owned property and have permission, or you own the property yourself, than that's another matter entirely. As far as I care a person could fall asleep drunk and stoned on their front lawn and I wouldn't bother them, as long as they kept their pants on.

[moraldeficiency]

No study has been able to prove any level of driving imparment and hemp smoke. They keep trying in europe but nothing yet. There are over a thousand people in the US recieving hemp from the gov. from a program started in the 80s to treat chronic pain. They smoke 24/7 and drive to work quite high. No problems there either.

I'm not saying it's definitive but the fact no one's been able to actually prove impairment means having a cell phone in the car is more probable to cause an accident than driving while high.

[Timstuff]

Try telling that to the guy in front of me the other night who was going 5 MPH and swerving all over the road. I might not know about hemp, but the pot that is popular in the US definitely appears to have negative affects on people's driving.

[moraldeficiency]

so you're 100 percent sure that was just pot and not say antidepressants which cause imparement or alcohol?

It's funny that not one study has proven any correlation between hemp use and imparement but there is proof against cell phones, radios being on and other people in the car.

[XpunkRocker]

Try telling that to the guy in front of me the other night who was going 5 MPH and swerving all over the road. I might not know about hemp, but the pot that is popular in the US definitely appears to have negative affects on people's driving.

That sounds like an alchohol issue and not a pot issue. swerving usually indicates slow reflexes, and those are usually attributed to alcohol

[8Diagrams(WU)]

wow. I agree completely. Especially when it comes to psychological addiction. Yes, there are people that abuse marijuana, same as they abuse any number of things but the important distinction is that it's a psychological addiction, not a physical addiction. I don't have a problem with alcohol or cigarettes being legal but it seems a bit hypocritical to outlaw arguably the safest of these three drugs yet keep the other two perfectly legal as long as you are a responsible adult.

It is most definitely a very hypocritical situation when we live in a society where you can legally obtain, and are very much encouraged to do so, far more addictive and health harming substances for "medicinal" purposes through a pharmacy. North American drugstores are the busiest in the world for a reason. They sell addictive content. Its always seemed silly to me that with a drivers license you can buy far more documented and proven damaging and addictive substances like cigarrettes from a gas station.

Should marijuana be legal? Most definitely yes. Alcohol and cigarretes are, and those log in thousands if not millions of deaths a year. I think there should be an age limit to obtaining this, but the Dutch model should be followed where its coffee shops that distribute it and sell it also in other forms like food based products. Its not harmful it really isnt, and I wish there was a certain honesty from the goverments on this issue instead of letting this problem (funding drug dealers) continue because they cant admit that their rules right now are outdated.

[Hypestyle]

congress needs to rethink the "war on drugs"-- non-violent offenders typically get incarcerated, then come out wanting to do worse things.. getting caught with a few pebbles of crack gets more jail time than having several bags of powder-cocaine..

all drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed heavily.. make the legal age for cannabis 19 (to cut back on high school seniors insisting they're entitled) and make it 21 for everything else.. independent pharmacies and specialty outlets can sell the product, since more than likely the Walgreens, Wal-marts, CVS, Rite-Aid and other pharmacy chains will not..
tax revenue can go into infrastructure, like roads, bridges, mass transit- light rail, subways, also for health-care-medicaid/care, etc.

..legalizing takes the profit from the dope gangs, and cuts down drastically on the violence associated with it..
Companies and schools can still have anti-drug policies, random drug testing, etc., same as before.. make harsh penalties for driving while impaired..
It's got nothing to do with saying "drugs are cool", what it does do is say the violence and mob/gang profits must cease..

[deathfromabove]

For recreational use? no.

why not?

it is far safer than most prescription medicines and much safer than alcohol.

why should the government prevent me from using it any way i see fit?

[Kelly]

why not?

it is far safer than most prescription medicines and much safer than alcohol.

why should the government prevent me from using it any way i see fit?


You might want to read all of the thread.......some of us have changed our stand......"if" it is taxed out the waaazooooooo. Reading the first few posts and going from there, is sometimes way off the topic at hand....:cwink: ALOT.............AAAAAAAAAAAAALOT ..................... has been discussed since then.


But as far as your last statement...is this for "just" marijuana.....or is that your stand in all areas.....? If its your stand in all areas....well then...."good luck"

[deathfromabove]

so pot should only be legal if the government can make a truck load of money then?

that doesnt make much sense either.

[Kelly]

so pot should only be legal if the government can make a truck load of money then?

that doesnt make much sense either.


You do realize that we have an extremely large tax on cigarettes....right?

So yes, if you are going to legalize something that smells like vomit, and isn't exactly "great and wonderful" for your body.....? Yes, I sure as hell better get something out of it, as in use the tax money for infrastructure among other things that we need...........so uh, yeah......

[deathfromabove]

You do realize that we have an extremely large tax on cigarettes....right?

So yes, if you are going to legalize something that smells like vomit, and isn't exactly "great and wonderful" for your body.....? Yes, I sure as hell better get something out of it, as in use the tax money for infrastructure among other things that we need...........so uh, yeah......

uh wow.

[Kelly]

uh wow.

:yay:

Yeah, you know....use the tax money for, oh I don't know......things like....

1. Education
2. Paying down the deficit
3. Transportation infrastructure


just to name a few things....


wow....

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Thing is that something like marijuana cannot be taxed, and I think maybe that is the real reason why it hasnt been legalized. As soon as it becomes legal every pot smoker will grow their own stuff at home. Its just a plant, and with some light and water youre good to go. Why buy something that has been taxed to hell when you can grow it at home. I think by now we all agree that the most upseting thing is the goverment just sitting down and allowing people to fund criminals when it doesnt have to be that way.

The only way to roll with it is to run the strategy the dutch have succesfully deployed. Let cofee shops take care of the distribution. If you smoke tobacco at these establishments you get fined, and you can also buy it in cookie and brownie form. Its a serious ammount of cash that could be healthy for the economy if it went into legit businesses

However, I do agree with an age restriction, but I wonder if usage amongst minors increased or decreased when pot became legal in the dutch system.

[deathfromabove]

:yay:

Yeah, you know....use the tax money for, oh I don't know......things like....

1. Education
2. Paying down the deficit
3. Transportation infrastructure


just to name a few things....


wow....

i have no problem taxing mary jane heavily if it is sold at retail. i have no problem with those taxes being used for the reasons you mentioned.

i have a problem with the opinion that it should only be legal if the government (or you ) can benefit from it.

basically you are saying i cant do what you want unless you stand to gain.

thats lame.

[Kelly]

Thing is that something like marijuana cannot be taxed, and I think maybe that is the real reason why it hasnt been legalized. As soon as it becomes legal every pot smoker will grow their own stuff at home. Its just a plant, and with some light and water youre good to go. Why buy something that has been taxed to hell when you can grow it at home. I think by now we all agree that the most upseting thing is the goverment just sitting down and allowing people to fund criminals when it doesnt have to be that way.

The only way to roll with it is to run the strategy the dutch have succesfully deployed. Let cofee shops take care of the distribution. If you smoke tobacco at these establishments you get fined, and you can also buy it in cookie and brownie form. Its a serious ammount of cash that could be healthy for the economy if it went into legit businesses

However, I do agree with an age restriction, but I wonder if usage amongst minors increased or decreased when pot became legal in the dutch system.

why? cigarettes are taxed...... alcohol is taxed...... why would weed be any different...

[Kelly]

i have no problem taxing mary jane heavily if it is sold at retail. i have no problem with those taxes being used for the reasons you mentioned.

i have a problem with the opinion that it should only be legal if the government (or you ) can benefit from it.

basically you are saying i cant do what you want unless you stand to gain.

thats lame.

You are really taking this too personal.......lmao. You really need to go back through this thread and read, back up alittle, chill out.........and don't take what I say so personally......I can assure you I wasn't thinking of stepping on any of your rights at all when I posted........only areas that our country could be helped by the money we need. That's all..............really.

[deathfromabove]

You are really taking this too personal.......lmao. You really need to go back through this thread and read, back up alittle, chill out.........and don't take what I say so personally......I can assure you I wasn't thinking of stepping on any of your rights at all when I posted........only areas that our country could be helped by the money we need. That's all..............really.

im not taking anything personal. not even a little. where do you get that impression?

in principle i think its unfortunate that it is deemed ok to legalize anything if, and only if, there is money to be made.

that sentiment troubles me.

[Kelly]

im not taking anything personal. not even a little. where do you get that impression?

in principle i think its unfortunate that it is deemed ok to legalize anything if, and only if, there is money to be made.

that sentiment troubles me.

*sighs* I don't see legalizing marijuana as a major positive thing, in much the same way I don't see alot of positive from cigarettes........ IMO....so I would like to see some positive things come out of it....sorry that troubles you.

[deathfromabove]

*sighs* I don't see legalizing marijuana as a major positive thing, in much the same way I don't see alot of positive from cigarettes........ IMO....so I would like to see some positive things come out of it....sorry that troubles you.

why are you sighing? thats not needed.:csad:

you are clearly not understanding what im putting down.

i think its unfortunate that you are only open to the idea of legalizing something if money can be made or if you benefit from it somehow. it sounds like unsound principle to me. if it is deemed ok to use than how much money can be made should not even enter the argument imo.

if i choose to partake in a relatively harmless substance why should you or anyone else need to gain something by that? does my usage harm you in any substantive way? no it does not.

[Kelly]

And you tell me you aren't taking this personally....

Well you have your opinion, I have mine......I will agree to disagree.....


Have a good night..

[deathfromabove]

And you tell me you aren't taking this personally....

Well you have your opinion, I have mine......I will agree to disagree.....


Have a good night..

but i'm not taking this personal:huh:

my point is one of principle.

i dont see how i am taking this even remotely personally. i barely even smoke.

oh well...

[8Diagrams(WU)]

why? cigarettes are taxed...... alcohol is taxed...... why would weed be any different...

It can be taxed. My point is that their efforts to gain money loose out big time on the fact that marijuana is a persistent plant that can be easily grown in a very small space. They can tax it heavily to make cash, but why would people pay premium price if they can grow it in their own backyard?

[moraldeficiency]

It can be taxed. My point is that their efforts to gain money loose out big time on the fact that marijuana is a persistent plant that can be easily grown in a very small space. They can tax it heavily to make cash, but why would people pay premium price if they can grow it in their own backyard?

So is tobacco. The reason you buy cigs rather than grow and make your own is convienance. The only reason people grow their own now is because of necessity. Make them legal and people wouldn't bother. You can make your own booze too, but few people bother with that. Believe it or not growing hemp (marijuana is a term invented by Hearst to make people stop thinking that hemp is a plant with uses so he could benefit from his lumber interests) to produce weed is not easy, it takes care and certian conditions. You can't just sprinkle seeds on the dirt and three months later smoke all you want. To produce buds takes care, effort, time and an enclosed or structured envirnment.

Bottom line, people would pay for it. I mean most smokers buy it from dealers currently right? Why don't they all just grow their own, it would be free.

Cigs are some of the most taxed items on the planet, and the only items no one seems to oppose tax increases on. Hemp would work the same way, and is far less damaging to the body.

The problem is over 70 years of propaganda started by a man and a few companies solely out of self interest has blossomed into the US needing to cover up a lie it's been telling people for far too long. It's hard to rethink things even when you know what you learned growing up was a lie. There's something very comforting in those childhood lies and prejudices that make them hard to give up.

Oh, BTW, all you crazy kids getting riled up about this need to sit back and smoke a joint.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I should clarify my point. The reason people do not grow it on their own right now is because it is illegal. And even with that there is a good number of people that do in their basement. Heavily taxing marijuana only leaves people either growing for free or going to cheaper outlets avoiding heavy tax considering that they already do so at the moment. I personally think maybe goverments understand this and they dont see the profit they want in taxes to bother changing the laws for it. Just an idea because its pretty clear that society now understand these laws are clearly outdated. I personally do think business that would sell it (ideally specialized coffee shops) should pay taxes for their sales, but not a heavy health hazzard based tax to disencourage people from consumption like cigarrettes considering that MJ will be consumed in different forms, not just smoking, if it became legal. The key to this whole thing is to make the multimillion dollar underground marijuana industry a contributing cashflow to the current economy by taking the cash that would go into the pockets of criminals and putting it into legal business' creating money for the goverment and jobs.

On a side note, Growing marijuana and tobacco is not the same. Tobacco requires far more care in the beginning stages, as where marijuana will grow even if you try not to lol. Definitely a noticeable difference in effort. Not to mention that smoking tobacco from the plant is not the same as smoking processed tobacco (with all the extra crap) from a pack.

[Kelly]

It can be taxed. My point is that their efforts to gain money loose out big time on the fact that marijuana is a persistent plant that can be easily grown in a very small space. They can tax it heavily to make cash, but why would people pay premium price if they can grow it in their own backyard?

Then you treat it like moonshine.....:cwink: Throw those Duke boys in jail.....

[Spider-Bite]

You do realize that we have an extremely large tax on cigarettes....right?

So yes, if you are going to legalize something that smells like vomit, and isn't exactly "great and wonderful" for your body.....? Yes, I sure as hell better get something out of it, as in use the tax money for infrastructure among other things that we need...........so uh, yeah......

I don't look at it like that. I do realize that in order to gain enough political support for the legalization of marijuana we are going to need to offer tax payers the benefit of tax revenue coming from this. So taxes will have to be just low enough to squash the black market, but still high enough to bring in several billion dollars.

In addition marijauna is cheaper to process than tobacco, if there were no taxes it would be cheaper than dirt. That would be too much availability. A few dollars per gram of descent mids would be fair. 8 or 9 dollars per gram of really potent weed.

[Spider-Bite]

I should clarify my point. The reason people do not grow it on their own right now is because it is illegal. And even with that there is a good number of people that do in their basement. Heavily taxing marijuana only leaves people either growing for free or going to cheaper outlets avoiding heavy tax considering that they already do so at the moment. I personally think maybe goverments understand this and they dont see the profit they want in taxes to bother changing the laws for it. Just an idea because its pretty clear that society now understand these laws are clearly outdated. I personally do think business that would sell it (ideally specialized coffee shops) should pay taxes for their sales, but not a heavy health hazzard based tax to disencourage people from consumption like cigarrettes considering that MJ will be consumed in different forms, not just smoking, if it became legal. The key to this whole thing is to make the multimillion dollar underground marijuana industry a contributing cashflow to the current economy by taking the cash that would go into the pockets of criminals and putting it into legal business' creating money for the goverment and jobs.

On a side note, Growing marijuana and tobacco is not the same. Tobacco requires far more care in the beginning stages, as where marijuana will grow even if you try not to lol. Definitely a noticeable difference in effort. Not to mention that smoking tobacco from the plant is not the same as smoking processed tobacco (with all the extra crap) from a pack.

Who s going to risk going to prison to grow something they can cheaply buy at the store? Too much work and too much risk with little to nothing in return. For one thing after you grow marijuana you need like a whole room set aside for you to hang your plants up side down in and everything.

You know most tobacco smokers don't want all that extra stuff put into their cigarettes. Some people even pay extra money to get their cigarettes without all that. The reason ciagrettes have those at the store is because they are cheaper quality tobacco. If you grew your own tobacco, yYou could grind it up, and then roast it in your oven, use the topomatic roller, which makes them come out perfect every time, and you'd be in business.

Nobody does this though, because without ciagrettes being illegal, there is no profit to be made for people like me and you. Nobody would pay more than few dollars per pack, and just making one pack is going to take you hours. So there is no incentive really for growing your tobacco and if weed were legal there wouldn't be any incentive then either.
Unless of course you have a factory and the ability to mass produce, in which case you might as well just get a license.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Who s going to risk going to prison to grow something they can cheaply buy at the store? Too much work and too much risk with little to nothing in return. For one thing after you grow marijuana you need like a whole room set aside for you to hang your plants up side down in and everything.

You know most tobacco smokers don't want all that extra stuff put into their cigarettes. Some people even pay extra money to get their cigarettes without all that. The reason ciagrettes have those at the store is because they are cheaper quality tobacco. If you grew your own tobacco, yYou could grind it up, and then roast it in your oven, use the topomatic roller, which makes them come out perfect every time, and you'd be in business.

Nobody does this though, because without ciagrettes being illegal, there is no profit to be made for people like me and you. Nobody would pay more than few dollars per pack, and just making one pack is going to take you hours. So there is no incentive really for growing your tobacco and if weed were legal there wouldn't be any incentive then either.
Unless of course you have a factory and the ability to mass produce, in which case you might as well just get a license.

The marijuana subculture and the cigarrette culture have never been the same so we cant make a market comparison like that. The point is that with legalization of Marijuana, comes the ability of choosing where you are going to obtain their product or more specifically where you will get it from even if its by your own means at home. Carrying marijuana would be legal and growing it behind closed doors automatically becomes a legal option. This is an existing market with prices, and product quality expentancies. A lets say +-20% tax takes away the convenience of going to the store where you can get the same but for cheaper from your dealer or by growing it at home. To be really attractive the tax has to be reasonable enough that the person would consider paying the tax and not going to a dealer/grow at home to save money. The @ home growing aspect is simply a factor they cannot control if legalization where to happen, so they have to make it more attractive for customers by setting up specialty coffee shops and distributing marijuana and marijuana based products so that the taxing aspect becomes less of an issue for customers. The key is to make it perfectly attractive for anyone to be comfortable enough to buy regularly and pay taxes from these designated locations.

I think no one here doubts that the marijuana industry would be a nice boost for the legal struggling economy of today.

[moraldeficiency]

The marijuana subculture and the cigarrette culture have never been the same so we cant make a market comparison like that. The point is that with legalization of Marijuana, comes the ability of choosing where you are going to obtain their product or more specifically where you will get it from even if its by your own means at home. Carrying marijuana would be legal and growing it behind closed doors automatically becomes a legal option. This is an existing market with prices, and product quality expentancies. A lets say +-20% tax takes away the convenience of going to the store where you can get the same but for cheaper from your dealer or by growing it at home. To be really attractive the tax has to be reasonable enough that the person would consider paying the tax and not going to a dealer/grow at home to save money. The @ home growing aspect is simply a factor they cannot control if legalization where to happen, so they have to make it more attractive for customers by setting up specialty coffee shops and distributing marijuana and marijuana based products so that the taxing aspect becomes less of an issue for customers. The key is to make it perfectly attractive for anyone to be comfortable enough to buy regularly and pay taxes from these designated locations.

I think no one here doubts that the marijuana industry would be a nice boost for the legal struggling economy of today.


That's not true, tobacco and hemp were very similiar products when the US first became a country. the majority of the founding fathers had both tobacco and hemp farms. The cultures were very similiar until later on when lumber interests became threatened by hemp and decided to change things.

Again, growing pot is not easy. If it was no one would buy from dealers. Hemp farms would do very well in this climate. In addition the overpopulation in prisons would be dealt with almost immediately. Win win win.

[Superman]

This is kind of off topic but since it will be about weed it's kinda on topic too.

Anyway...

Cheech and Chong get animated for movie


LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Cheech and Chong are smokin'. Well, obviously.

As the comedians' reunion tour, Cheech & Chong Light Up America, fires out nationwide, the stoned duo are set to roll into theaters with their own cartoon feature.

"Cheech and Chong's Smokin' Animated Movie" will use the famous comedy bits that appeared on the duo's comedy albums and films. Lou Adler, the music impresario who discovered Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong in the early 1970s and owns their classic library, has sold the animated rights to DVD producer Big Vision Entertainment and Chambers Bros. Entertainment.

"It's great to be doing a movie where Cheech and I never have to get out of bed or be on camera," Chong said.

"It's about time that we got animated because we've been doing animation without the animation for years," added Marin. "Whether you watch it smokin' a fattie or stone-cold sober, it's just plain funny."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081216/film_nm/us_cheech_1

:woot:

[souvlaki]

I keep telling myself it's probably only a rolled cigarette, but...

http://www.boingboing.net/200812171355.jpg

Also, this quote from Obama is great:

"Yes, I inhaled. That was sort of the point."

[Superman]

I keep telling myself it's probably only a rolled cigarette, but...

http://www.boingboing.net/200812171355.jpg

Also, this quote from Obama is great:

"Yes, I inhaled. That was sort of the point."It's my understanding that it's just a cigarette, Not rolled or anything else.:yay:

[souvlaki]

It's my understanding that it's just a cigarette, Not rolled or anything else.:yay:

I figured so... but the fact that he's holding it like a joint made me wonder.

[Spider-Bite]

I keep telling myself it's probably only a rolled cigarette, but...

http://www.boingboing.net/200812171355.jpg

Also, this quote from Obama is great:

"Yes, I inhaled. That was sort of the point."

Look at his eyes. Unless he's the first Oriential Asian American President, that ain't no ordinary cigarette.

[Spider-Bite]

The marijuana subculture and the cigarrette culture have never been the same so we cant make a market comparison like that. The point is that with legalization of Marijuana, comes the ability of choosing where you are going to obtain their product or more specifically where you will get it from even if its by your own means at home. Carrying marijuana would be legal and growing it behind closed doors automatically becomes a legal option. This is an existing market with prices, and product quality expentancies. A lets say +-20% tax takes away the convenience of going to the store where you can get the same but for cheaper from your dealer or by growing it at home. To be really attractive the tax has to be reasonable enough that the person would consider paying the tax and not going to a dealer/grow at home to save money. The @ home growing aspect is simply a factor they cannot control if legalization where to happen, so they have to make it more attractive for customers by setting up specialty coffee shops and distributing marijuana and marijuana based products so that the taxing aspect becomes less of an issue for customers. The key is to make it perfectly attractive for anyone to be comfortable enough to buy regularly and pay taxes from these designated locations.

I think no one here doubts that the marijuana industry would be a nice boost for the legal struggling economy of today.


You would surely need a license to grow marijuana. Your simply being unrealistic in your argument. there are a few weak points that opponents of legalization can make. But the points you are making have no crediblity, because they are too farfetched, and just out of touch with reality.

If you legalize marijuana people are going to buy it at the store plain and simple. Everybody with common sense knows that. Plus every person I know that ever tried to grow their own ****ed it up and their weed turned out like absolute crap that you couldn't pay me to smoke.

It's not that easy to grow it.

think about it. Even without the threat of going to prison for it, the overwhelming majority of Americans buy their tomatoes at the store instead of growing their own. Same goes for basically every plant we consume.

and that's without fear of going to prison. with weed, if you grow your own without a license, you might go to prison. Instead of risking prison and going through all the hassle of growing weed, wouldn't a person just go to the gas station and buy a pack of joints?

that's how people work in our economy. People like conveinence without hassle. That's why most people buy their cigarettes pre-rolled even though it's three times as expensive as it is to buy a bag of tobacco and roll your own, and yes you can roll your own perfect cigarettes with a filter and everything. All you need is a very inexpensive machine.

Yet poeple still buy it at the store. As consumers we really, really, really, really like conveience a lot!

[The Senator]

Look at his eyes. Unless he's the first Oriential Asian American President, that ain't no ordinary cigarette.

Considering he's the first Muslim President, nothing else would surprise me.

[Matt]

Yes. Absolutely. I say it is time we legalize everything.

We'd drop imprisonment rates, we'd be able to regulate how potent drugs are, we'd drive numerous criminal enterprises out of business, and we'd make a **** load in tax dollars. Sure, some will say people will still make their own in order to avoid government regulations on how strong it can be and taxes, but to that I'd argue, when the hell is the last time you drank bathtub-made gin?

But once we do legalize all of this, we should cut government programs to bail out addicts unless they can prove that they are reformed. Then we can have an agency that helps find them jobs. We should let people be responsible for their own actions but with that responsibility comes consequences of said actions. People can't say, "I'm responsible enough to choose," then turn to big brother to bail them out the second it goes bad.

[Spider-Bite]

I disagree with the whole ending drug rehabilitation programs. I don't support legalization out of a desire to let people say "I'm responsible enough to choose." I simply support it for the overall good of society, because I believe the drug would be less harmful to society than it is now.

Not to mention the fact if we create a society that lets people fall through the cracks than we have an obligation to help those people pick themselves back up.

Plus it defeats the purpose of saying "We wont help you quit using drugs untill after you already reformed yourself and quit using them."

it's like saying you wont hand me the paintbrush untill after I'm done painting.

I believe as a society we are all in this together. United we stand, divided we fall. It takes a village to raise a child.

[Matt]

Why is it the obligation of tax payers to bail out people who fall through the cracks due to their own mistakes, often numerous, numerous times even after having literally thousands of tax payer dollars handed to them to be "rehabilitated," before?

Hell, I remember when my older sister was in rehab, there was a family visit day and the doctor told us, "There is nothing we can do for her or any of these patients in the long term. The fact is, most people will not clean themselves up until they hit rock bottom." That tends to be true with addicts. THey will continue to use until they see consequences for their actions. Getting bailed out by family, friends, or the government is a disservice to them.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Matt;16171298]Why is it the obligation of tax payers to bail out people who fall through the cracks due to their own mistakes, often numerous, numerous times even after having literally thousands of tax payer dollars handed to them to be "rehabilitated," before?

because it's the responsiblity of the government to make life better for the citizens living under it. and if this person becomes a productive member of society, than they will surely pay a lot more in taxes than what you spent on them. Not to mention it's cheaper to rehabilitate somebody and help them grow as a person than it is to incarcerate them for life, after society abandons them and they go out and hurt somebody.

And because rehabilitation is a science. It progresses and advances.



Hell, I remember when my older sister was in rehab, there was a family visit day and the doctor told us, "There is nothing we can do for her or any of these patients in the long term. The fact is, most people will not clean themselves up until they hit rock bottom." That tends to be true with addicts. THey will continue to use until they see consequences for their actions. Getting bailed out by family, friends, or the government is a disservice to them.

Your not talking about rehabilitation. Your talking about freebies. Two different things. If you'd like to propose a more effective reform, by all means do it, but that's not what you originally proposed. You proposed abandonment which will lead to an increase in criminal behavior.

think about it. a drug addict with nothing to lose who needs money. Would you want to come across that guy in a dark alley?

Besides your generalization of how it works is not always accurate. I have gone through drug counseling courtesy of health and human services. It does not cost thousands of dollars to see a therapist for an hour once every few weeks.

Your looking at an act of compassion and trying to twist it into something ugly.

Basically it comes down to the victim/product of society argument. What kind of society do we want for America? one with lots of drug addicts and criminals or one without? Not to mention that even if they don't quit untill they hit rock bottom, the help they had previously received might still be helpful to helping them stay sober. It all adds up.

[Matt]

[QUOTE]

because it's the responsiblity of the government to make life better for the citizens living under it. and if this person becomes a productive member of society, than they will surely pay a lot more in taxes than what you spent on them. Not to mention it's cheaper to rehabilitate somebody and help them grow as a person than it is to incarcerate them for life, after society abandons them and they go out and hurt somebody.

Since when is it the government's responsibility to give anything to "make life better for its citizens,"? The government should and does give every American citizen the ability to make a better life for themselves. Beyond that it owes us nothing. I think you grossly misinterpret what the government's role in our lives ought to be, but alas, I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree.


And because rehabilitation is a science. It progresses and advances.

There are studies which disprove so called "rehabilitation sciences," as well. They are mostly psychological studies, which can be incredibly flawed.


Your not talking about rehabilitation. Your talking about freebies. Two different things. If you'd like to propose a more effective reform, by all means do it, but that's not what you originally proposed. You proposed abandonment which will lead to an increase in criminal behavior.

think about it. a drug addict with nothing to lose who needs money. Would you want to come across that guy in a dark alley?

And when they commit criminal activity we can discipline them for their choice to mug someone. I'd argue more will straighten their lives out upon hitting rock bottom than mugging someone.


Besides your generalization of how it works is not always accurate. I have gone through drug counseling courtesy of health and human services. It does not cost thousands of dollars to see a therapist for an hour once every few weeks.

So you did not foot the bill? Then how can you know how much it costs? Clinical counselors can charge quite a bit per hour, so yes, your rehabilitation could have added up to the thousands. Now every person the tax payers are putting through this system...it adds up.


Your looking at an act of compassion and trying to twist it into something ugly.

Basically it comes down to the victim/product of society argument. What kind of society do we want for America? one with lots of drug addicts and criminals or one without?

No, its not a victim or product of society. It is a product or victim of their own actions. Furthermore, do you have any empirical evidence to back up a claim that drug addicts who cannot support their habit or get free medical treatment will mug people?

[Spider-Bite]

Since when is it the government's responsibility to give anything to its citizens? I think you grossly misinterpret what the government's role in our lives ought to be, but alas, I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree.


in that instance yeah. We have different expectations of the government. Kind of like how some people don't think it's the government's job to provide education or health care. I say the government has the potential to make the world a better place, and with great power comes great responsiblity.



There are studies which disprove so called "rehabilitation sciences," as well.

No there isn't. How can you prove that a science which is way more advanced than it used to be, wont continue to advance? Not to mention I've been rehabilitated. My anxiety disorder, which is extremely connected to my own drug addiction, is way, way, way, way, way better than it was before I started getting help. And I did make it the entire summer without using. I admit though I fell off the wagon when my grandmother died a few months back, and now I'm starting all over again. Fiening for it right now as we talk about it actually.


They are mostly psychological studies, which can be incredibly flawed.

Just like every other science, they are flawed. No science is perfect. Just as our space shuttles have flaws. That doesn't mean they are useless. It means we got work to do on improving it.


And when they commit criminal activity we can discipline them for their choice to mug someone. I'd argue more will straighten their lives out upon hitting rock bottom than mugging someone.

I kind of agree but hitting rock bottom and mugging somebody are kind of one and the same.



So you did not foot the bill? Then how can you know how much it costs? Clinical counselors can charge quite a bit per hour, so yes, your rehabilitation could have added up to the thousands. Now every person the tax payers are putting through this system...it adds up.

I did not insert this gene into my dna giving me an anxiety disorder, assuming it's genetic, which studies suggest it is, and it does appear to run in my family. And yes I know because I looked into paying for it myself. It probably is about a thousand now. but so what? If you had the same problem I had, you would realize how cruel and and inhumane it would be to not help. Actually if you had it like I had it, and most people with this disorder don't, you might not wake up in the morning. I hate saying this, and I'm not trying to throw something at you to make you feel bad, but if it wasn't for this, I 100% gurantee I would not be alive today.


Anxiety disorders, assuming there is a gene for it, are caused by a combination of the gene and environemtnal factors that were completely beyond my control while I was a young child. I deserve the chance at life, I never got.


No, its not a victim or product of society. It is a product or victim of their own actions. Furthermore, do you have any empirical evidence to back up a claim that drug addicts who cannot support their habit or get free medical treatment will mug people?

That is only true to a degree. For the most part it's false.

I'm going to go ahead and tell you the whole story. Seeing as it's semi confidential since none of you know me personally.

People with my disorder often have triggers for anxiety. I have three. One of them is police officers. the other is being in a vehicle. I can't drive. I've never had my driver's license. I'm 27. I can stand being in a vehicle to get to where I need to be though. If I drove, it would be dangerous. there is a strong chance I would have a panick attack and crash.

the other is women. If a girl flirts with me or anything like that, I have panick attacks. I sweat and shake. My brain shuts off so taht I can't put together sentences, and even if I could I can't talk, because my throat gets so tight and dry that it's impossible to talk. My upper lip shakes and it looks weird. My legs turn to rubber, and my stomach cramps.

Sometimes it causes blood vessels in my eyes to explode. If I like a girl this happens just from regular casual conversation.

People with this disorder are naturally prone to drug addiction. quitting is very difficult because when your addicted, not using naturally causes anxiety, so a person with an anxity disorder has it even worse. Especially if they suffer from depression.

the problem is drugs make the disorder worse, and the worse it gets, the more addicted you become.

I spent three years in complete social isolation cutting myself off from society before rehabilitating myself. I want to be a productive member of society. When I went to the DVR, they gave me an IQ test, and convinced me to go to college.

What caused this? The combination of my genes, assuming it's genetic, and the fact that my mother was molested her whole entire life untill she was an adult. She hated men, and took her anger out on me, while simultaneously not allowing me to have a social life as a teenager. She was afraid it would happen to me.

On a daily basis I was told that I ruined her life, she hated me, was gonna kill herself and it was going to be my fault. She constantly said things like this to me.She also always told me "nobody is ever going to want you. Not the way you are." This was happening as far back as I can remember. I'm talking five years old untill around 16 or 17 when she got help and she did change, permanetely. My youngest sister has never seen any of this.

I did not cause this situation on myself. this situation was given to me by the society around me. there was no rehabilitation program for my mother back then. Even though she was a victim, she was ignored by society. Both her and my grandfather, who are part of society, gave me this problem. I didn't bring it on myself.

I am partly to blame obviously. I shouldn't have isolated myself for three years and I shouldn't have used so much drugs in my life. It make things worse, but at the same time, I wouldn't have made those decisions had I not been in this situation.

Not every criminal or drug addict has the same situation as me obviously, but there are factors there. 95% of our prison population are people who were abused either sexually, mentally, or physically. Over 90% of black market prostitutes are victims of child molestation. They get addicted to drugs to cope with the mental pain, and then the only way to pay for it is to hor themselves. These people too desereve a chance. They never got one, and they will never have an equal chance, but we have an obligation to help these people.

I don't just say this because I'm one of the people who needs help. I believed this before I even realized I was one of those poeple, as I did not know what an anxiety disorder was untill I was 21, even though I had it since I was 12 or 13.

[Spider-Bite]

I know what's it like to be one of those people who fell through the cracks.

[Spider-Bite]

to better explain how it's connected to drugs. they help with the anxiety in the short term, and make it worse in the long term. I'm actually shaking right now just from typing that long personal message. Happens every time I explain my situation to somebody.

[Superman]

I saw on MSNBC yesterday that Massachusettes has a new law that starts today that says you can have up to an ounce of weed and not get busted.

It's a start. :up:

[Spider-Bite]

I saw on MSNBC yesterday that Massachusettes has a new law that starts today that says you can have up to an ounce of weed and not get busted.

It's a start. :up:

I just checked their archives. There is no mention of any articles or transcripts for their shows which state anything like that.

I think you had to have heard wrong.

Not to mention that law would have had to been passed a while ago in order to take effect today, and it would have been huge news. It would have surely been injected into the campaigns for the White House as well as everybody would have wanted to know Obama and McCain's opinion on the matter.

[Kelly]

I saw on MSNBC yesterday that Massachusettes has a new law that starts today that says you can have up to an ounce of weed and not get busted.

It's a start. :up:

You will still get busted, but it is only a civil fine of $100....

[redfirebird2008]

I say we legalize it and tax the everloving hell out of it. Perhaps that could help a little bit with trying to dig ourselves out of debt.

[Spider-Bite]

I say we legalize it and tax the everloving hell out of it. Perhaps that could help a little bit with trying to dig ourselves out of debt.

You can put a good amount of tax on it, but you can't tax the evolving hell out of it, or the black market will remain just as strong as it is now, possibly stronger, since it will be harder to bust people for possession making it harder to come up with narks.

If the taxes are too high, it could make the situation worse than it is now. A few dollars per gram would be fair. For those that don't know a gram would make a joint about the size of a typical ciagrette not counting the filter.

[Kelly]

I say we legalize it and tax the everloving hell out of it. Perhaps that could help a little bit with trying to dig ourselves out of debt.


Tax it the same as cigarettes.......no more than that is needed IMO.

[Spider-Bite]

Tax it the same as cigarettes.......no more than that is needed IMO.

Heck no. Your talking five dollars for 20 grams? That is way too cheap. It's almost free. It would lead to way too much usage, not to mention way too little tax revenue.

People are currently paying about five dollars a gram for commerical. 15 dollars a gram for really good stuff.

It should be three dollars a gram for mids, and six dollars a gram for really good stuff. Slightly cheaper if you roll your own, but not much cheaper. With variation from state to state of course based on living standards and average wages.

[Superman]

I just checked their archives. There is no mention of any articles or transcripts for their shows which state anything like that.

I think you had to have heard wrong.

Not to mention that law would have had to been passed a while ago in order to take effect today, and it would have been huge news. It would have surely been injected into the campaigns for the White House as well as everybody would have wanted to know Obama and McCain's opinion on the matter.

The only thing I heard wrong was the $100 fine part. They did change the law though...

http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2008/12/30/Mass-officials-try-to-reign/1230677845.html

You will still get busted, but it is only a civil fine of $100....You're right, They didn't mention that part in the report I saw.:o


It's still a start.






Oh one more thing, Spider-Bite check the archives for the morning hours on MSNBC, That's about the time I saw it. They was promoting a segment that was to be on NBC Nightly News.

[StorminNorman]

Yes. Absolutely. I say it is time we legalize everything.

We'd drop imprisonment rates, we'd be able to regulate how potent drugs are, we'd drive numerous criminal enterprises out of business, and we'd make a **** load in tax dollars. Sure, some will say people will still make their own in order to avoid government regulations on how strong it can be and taxes, but to that I'd argue, when the hell is the last time you drank bathtub-made gin?

But once we do legalize all of this, we should cut government programs to bail out addicts unless they can prove that they are reformed. Then we can have an agency that helps find them jobs. We should let people be responsible for their own actions but with that responsibility comes consequences of said actions. People can't say, "I'm responsible enough to choose," then turn to big brother to bail them out the second it goes bad.

:up: This is want I want.

[Kelly]

Legalize everything?

You are going to legalize cocaine? A drug that you take it and your saturation range goes up, so you take more to get high, and it just drops out of no where, and ya die......ya want to legalize that drug? Really?

[Franklin Richards]

You will still get busted, but it is only a civil fine of $100....

So it's only punitive to the poor. Much like most of our laws. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Kelly]

Hey, I didn't write the law, I just posted what it actually is....lol

[Spider-Bite]

legaliziaing cocaine would be kind of complicated considering the countless lawsuits that would arise as a result of overdosing.

Personally I only support legalizing marijuana.

[souvlaki]

Why Obama Really Might Decriminalize Marijuana

The stoner community is clamoring to say it: "Yes we cannabis!" Turns out, with several drug-war veterans close to the president-elect's ear, insiders think reform could come in Obama's second term -- or sooner.

By John H. Richardson

Famously, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved the United States banking system during the first seven days of his first term.

And what did he do on the eighth day? "I think this would be a good time for beer," he said.

Congress had already repealed Prohibition, pending ratification from the states. But the people needed a lift, and legalizing beer would create a million jobs. And lo, booze was back. Two days after the bill passed, Milwaukee brewers hired six hundred people and paid their first $10 million in taxes. Soon the auto industry was tooling up the first $12 million worth of delivery trucks, and brewers were pouring tens of millions into new plants.

"Roosevelt's move to legalize beer had the effect he intended," says Adam Cohen, author of Nothing To Fear, a thrilling new history of FDR's first hundred days. "It was, one journalist observed, 'like a stick of dynamite into a log jam.'"

Many in the marijuana world are now hoping for something similar from Barack Obama. After all, the president-elect said in 2004 that the war on drugs had been "an utter failure" and that America should decriminalize pot:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wQr9ezr8UeA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wQr9ezr8UeA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In July, Obama told Rolling Stone that he believed in "shifting the paradigm" to a public-health approach: "I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives -- it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense."

Meanwhile, economists have been making the beer argument. In a paper titled "Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," Dr. Jeffrey Miron of Harvard argues that legalized marijuana would generate between $10 and $14 billion in savings and taxes every year -- conclusions endorsed by 300 top economists, including Milton "Free Market" Friedman himself.

And two weeks ago, when the Obama team asked the public to vote on the top problems facing America, this was the public's No. 1 question: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"

But alas, the answer from Camp Obama was -- as it has been for years -- a flat one-liner: "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana." And at least two of Obama's top people are drug-war supporters: Rahm Emanuel has been a long-time enemy of reform, and Joe Biden is a drug-war mainstay who helped create the position of "drug czar."

Meanwhile, in 2007, the last year for which statistics are available, 782,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana-related crimes (90 percent of them for possession), with approximately 60,000 to 85,000 of them serving sentences in jail or prison. It's the continuation of an unnecessary stream of suffering that now has taught generations of Americans just how capricious their government can be. The irony is that the preference for "decriminalization" over legalization actually supports the continued existence of criminal drug mafias.

Nevertheless, the marijuana community is guardedly optimistic. "Reformers will probably be disappointed that Obama is not going to go as far as they want, but we're probably not going to continue this mindless path of prohibition," NORML executive director Allen St. Pierre tells me.

Some of Obama's biggest financial donors are friends of the legalization movement, St. Pierre notes. "Frankly, George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling -- this triumvirate of billionaires -- if those three men, who put up $50 to $60 million to get Democrats and Obama elected, can't pick up the phone and actually get a one-to-one meeting on where this drug policy is going, then maybe it's true that when you give money, you don't expect favors."

Another member of that moneyed group: Marsha Rosenbaum, the former head of the San Francisco office of the Drug Policy Alliance, who quit last year to become a fundraiser for Obama and "bundled" an impressive $204,000 for his campaign. She said that based on what she hears from inside the transition team, she expects Obama to play it very safe. "He said at one point that he's not going to use any political capital with this -- that's a concern," Rosenbaum tells me. And the Path to Change will probably have to pass through the Valley of Studies and Reports. "I'm hoping that what the administration will do," she says, "is something this country hasn't done since 1971, which is to undertake a presidential commission to look at drug policy, convene a group of blue-ribbon experts to look at the issue, and make recommendations."

But ultimately, Rosenbaum remains confident that those recommendations would call for an end to the drug war. "Once everything settles down in the second term, we have a shot at seeing some real reform."

Still, a certain paranoia prevails. Rumors about Obama's choice for drug czar have lingered on Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad. "He's been a standard anti-drug warrior for the whole time he's been in Congress," says St. Pierre. Another possibility is Atlanta police chief Richard Pennington, who raises fears in the legalization community of more of the same law-enforcement model. Another prospect stirring the bong waters is Dr. Don Vereen, the chief drug policy thinker on the transition team. "He's really a believer in prohibition and he can excite an audience," says Rosenbaum, who says a friend on the transition team refused to hint at final contenders for the drug czar pick. "I'm joking with him, 'I'm going to have to open up the New York Times for this, aren't I?'" His answer: "We're going to send out smoke signals."

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-marijuana-legalization-122308

[Oddzball]

The time is not now. The time is 40 years or more overdue.

[Nivek]

Anyone here live in Massachusetts? I know they decriminalized possession of an ounce and under, was just wondering when that goes into effect.

[BlackLantern]

I can get behind it being decrimininalized, that's a big step forward....I just think that some supporters assume that it being legalized will equal social acceptance and that's not going to happen...I don't need to have co-workers walking by my desk reeking of weed....

[Kelly]

Anyone here live in Massachusetts? I know they decriminalized possession of an ounce and under, was just wondering when that goes into effect.


Its not decriminalized, just a fine of $100.....I posted an article about it in here a couple of days ago.....should be back maybe a page or two.


Ooops I didn't post the link.....

here it is...maybe they give a date here....
http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-Engla...230677845.html

.

[Matt]

Legalize everything?

You are going to legalize cocaine? A drug that you take it and your saturation range goes up, so you take more to get high, and it just drops out of no where, and ya die......ya want to legalize that drug? Really?

Once legalized the government could regulate how potent cocaine is in order to prevent things like this, but even if they couldn't...yes. It is the choice of the user. Its not as if it being illegal is stopping people from using anyway.

[Kelly]

Once legalized the government could regulate how potent cocaine is in order to prevent things like this, but even if they couldn't...yes. It is the choice of the user. Its not as if it being illegal is stopping people from using anyway.


That is just very scary....the fact that the Netherlands are even pulling back from their legalized marijuana.......I think that tellsl us something, or should.....

I'm still all for legalizing marijuana......I think we can regulate it just fine. But, all drugs? No way. Marijuana is not a gateway drug....your need to get the high does not increase, its no more than a cigarette....other drugs? no, the need to increase the usage is there, and at some point, we are back to an addiction that leads to criminal acts.

Hell, legalized drugs that are highly addictive lead to criminal acts, so we want to put more of that, at a higher rate on the market? I say....no.:word:

[redfirebird2008]

That is just very scary....the fact that the Netherlands are even pulling back from their legalized marijuana.......I think that tellsl us something, or should.....

I'm still all for legalizing marijuana......I think we can regulate it just fine. But, all drugs? No way. Marijuana is not a gateway drug....your need to get the high does not increase, its no more than a cigarette....other drugs? no, the need to increase the usage is there, and at some point, we are back to an addiction that leads to criminal acts.

Hell, legalized drugs that are highly addictive lead to criminal acts, so we want to put more of that, at a higher rate on the market? I say....no.:word:

So with your logic, alcohol shouldn't be legal. It's very addictive and causes plenty of criminal activity (drunk driving = a crapload of tragic deaths every year).

[Kelly]

So with your logic, alcohol shouldn't be legal. It's very addictive and causes plenty of criminal activity (drunk driving = a crapload of tragic deaths every year).

All of these are addictive, I understand that, and all cause tragedy.......I don't necessarily "like" any of them....lol

My point is that "some of those "all drugs legalized" are major gateway drugs, and the drug user has such a need to increase that they lose all ability to regulate themselves, far beyond alcohol, far beyond cigarettes, far beyond marijuana.

In my opinion, legalizing these things, making them more available, increases the chance of more criminal activity (psychosis etc.), rather than decreasing it.

IMO....:yay:

[Matt]

But if the government were able to put certain regulations on its usage and possibly put chemicals into it to make it less addictive and less potent, isn't the risk of such a thing greatly lowered? Then again, if they do that...I suppose its not really cocaine at all and there would still be a black market for it.