Discussion: Legalizing Marijuana II

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by ShaDynasty

Well I mean you ARE inhaling carbon monoxide which is bad for your lungs...

But I don't disagree with its legalization in the least. If smoking a cigarette is legal, it's plain silly that smoking a blunt isn't.

Carcinogens are far less harmful in cannabis than tobacco because of the interaction between the carcinogens and THC.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1019003339.htm

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

I think what the legalization movement really needs in order to bump up its legitimacy is the equivalent to alcohol sobriety road tests.

When the law can say .08 (or whatever) is over the legal limit for pot, and can give field tests to catch DWI's, and employers can give tests, and the tests don't trigger on trace levels from days ago that have no effects anymore, then you'll see it legally treated the same as alcohol nation-wide.

And if such standards and tests do exist, the movement needs to do a better job publicizing that, because, as an outsider, I haven't heard of them myself. And I actually support legalization.

There's a blood test that test for cannabis usage for the last 3 to 4 hours.

[Anti-Moderator]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Carcinogens are far less harmful in cannabis than tobacco because of the interaction between the carcinogens and THC.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1019003339.htm

Not only that, but there are more options to consume marijuana than smoking.it.

[Sun_Down]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

• Gateway drug
  Mental health links
  Unknown health links

The gateway drug theory has been debunked over and over. A simple Google search will provide a wealth of information on the topic. The relationship between marijuana and harder drugs is correlation, not causation. People who end up using harder drugs will start with "safer", more accepted and more available drugs, like marijuana, alcohol and nicotine. Those with a propensity to use harder drugs will, while most marijuana users will never do so.

[Dark Sentinel]

Legalization Bill Introduced to Uruguayan Congress

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Your "unknown heath risks" is a bit silly. We know, from decades of studying cannabis users that no one has ever died or been noticeably harmed from using cannabis. Meanwhile alcohol causes 75,00 deaths a year and it's perfectly legal.

I know someone who has schizo from weed. He says it ruined his life. As for the health risks, there has been proof that it lowers your IQ. And the point you just made is like saying guns a legal in the US, therefore death rays shoul be too.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

I know someone who has schizo from weed. He says it ruined his life. As for the health risks, there has been proof that it lowers your IQ. And the point you just made is like saying guns a legal in the US, therefore death rays shoul be too.

1) Prove that the weed caused his schizophrenia. This thought-exercise should handily expose the flaw in your reasoning.

2) It has only been shown to lower IQ in subjects who began smoking at an early age. This is actually an important distinction you're either intentionally omitting or of which you're unaware.

Of course, you and I have actually had BOTH of these discussions before. Your memory must be awful. Time to stop smoking that reefer, I guess.

[Whiskey Tango]

People in a study who began smoking marijuana as teenagers and continued to use it heavily for decades lost a few I.Q. points along the way.

Contrast that with prescription drugs which are freely sold and kill more people each year than heroin and cocaine combined.

[Hawkingbird]

Is there anybody else here with the sense to disagree with the legalization?

[wiegeabo]

way to ask a loaded question

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

I'm going to ignore the fact that every single one of my arguments has been obliterated and start passive-aggressively ridiculing anybody who disagrees with me.

Fixed.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

Is there anybody else here with the sense to disagree with the legalization?

That will be especially difficult since prohibition of cannabis makes no sense at all. Cannabis is one of the most useful natural substances on the planet with thousands of industrial uses, hundreds of medicinal and dozens of recreational uses. Keeping it illegal while tolerating things as incredibly destructive as alcohol and tobacco is completely illogical not to mention a shameful waste of time energy and resources.

Cannabis was made illegal for racist (Harry J. Anslinger) and competitive (William Randolph Hearst) reasons and kept illegal by blatantly ignoring science and medical studies decade after decade.

The public is tired of the government's lies and hypocrisy. People are more informed about the truth about cannabis more than ever. Prohibition is going to end up being chased out of town like Frankenstein's confused monster.

[wiegeabo]

[Smashlilman]

The funny thing about that chart is that most of that money is spent on targeting minority drug users and dealers even though the majority of drug users and dealers are Caucasians.

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

[Tanin]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

Is there anybody else here with the sense to disagree with the legalization?

I personally would rather it not be legal only because I am personally allergic to it. The problem it would cause me would be minor so I don't lobby against it or anything... it would just be an annoyance on my part.

[Anti-Moderator]

Originally Posted by Tanin

I personally would rather it not be legal only because I am personally allergic to it. The problem it would cause me would be minor so I don't lobby against it or anything... it would just be an annoyance on my part.

This is also the most rational argument against Legalizing marijuana I've read so far....everything else sounds like it was copy/pasted straight from the script of the movie Reefer Madness.

[Figs]

Originally Posted by Smashlilman

The funny thing about that chart is that most of that money is spent on targeting minority drug users and dealers even though the majority of drug users and dealers are Caucasians.

Do you have proof of this?

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Figs

Do you have proof of this?

The amount of users is roughly equal by percentage for all races, but since their is more whites then other minorities there is many more white users when you do head counts then any other minority

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

Is there anybody else here with the sense to disagree with the legalization?

Nope. I actually have good sense.

[Hawkingbird]

Until there is proof that the drug has no effects on mental health, IQ and memory, I am always going to be anti-legalization.

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by Figs

Do you have proof of this?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/r...-united-states


http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/using-data...examples.shtml

Race

There is a clear relationship between race and the type of drug offense committed, which was not seen with the other variables. Black and Asian minorites are more likely to be reported in dealer-related offenses than whites. This holds especially true for Blacks, with 74% reported in conjunction with dealer-related offenses. Since race has a relationship to the type of offense reported, it is possible that the previous tables, if broken out by race, would provide clearer patterns.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

Until there is proof that the drug has no effects on mental health, IQ and memory, I am always going to be anti-legalization.

Since when does something need to pass that test to be legal?

By that logic television and alcohol would be illegal.

[Dark Sentinel]

Ok, so I've been thinking about this lately in regards to I-502 & A-64, and the report of Northeastern states following suit, in particular the Obama administration's reaction (or lack thereof). Go with me on this.

In Obama's first term he implemented two stimulus packages, and the economy didn't really react much. We've gone from a "recession" into what I call a "rutcession": not terrible, but definitely not great.
Prop19 failed in California in 2010 because Atty. Gen. Holder issued a statement right before the election condemning the act and threatening to use all DEA resources to keep the Controlled Substances Act in force. This year, with not one not two but THREE similar proposals on the ballot? Not a word.
Now, whether this was due to Obama's focus on his reelection campaign or the fiscal cliff crisis or whatever, is it possible to think that Obama just may be rethinking his stance on the issue? He obviously wants to repeat Clinton and get us back to a surplus, what if he comes out pro-legalization, it passes, and the economy jolts to life again?

Would love to hear your thoughts guys, this is a great discussion. Goodnight!

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by Dark Sentinel

Ok, so I've been thinking about this lately in regards to I-502 & A-64, and the report of Northeastern states following suit, in particular the Obama administration's reaction (or lack thereof). Go with me on this.

In Obama's first term he implemented two stimulus packages, and the economy didn't really react much. We've gone from a "recession" into what I call a "rutcession": not terrible, but definitely not great.
Prop19 failed in California in 2010 because Atty. Gen. Holder issued a statement right before the election condemning the act and threatening to use all DEA resources to keep the Controlled Substances Act in force. This year, with not one not two but THREE similar proposals on the ballot? Not a word.
Now, whether this was due to Obama's focus on his reelection campaign or the fiscal cliff crisis or whatever, is it possible to think that Obama just may be rethinking his stance on the issue? He obviously wants to repeat Clinton and get us back to a surplus, what if he comes out pro-legalization, it passes, and the economy jolts to life again?

Would love to hear your thoughts guys, this is a great discussion. Goodnight!

If he does anything regarding it, he would probably decriminize Marijuana on a federal level and hand the power back to the States to ban and/or regulate it as each State sees fit.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Sentinel

In Obama's first term he implemented two stimulus packages, and the economy didn't really react much. We've gone from a "recession" into what I call a "rutcession": not terrible, but definitely not great.
Prop19 failed in California in 2010 because Atty. Gen. Holder issued a statement right before the election condemning the act and threatening to use all DEA resources to keep the Controlled Substances Act in force. This year, with not one not two but THREE similar proposals on the ballot? Not a word.
Now, whether this was due to Obama's focus on his reelection campaign or the fiscal cliff crisis or whatever, is it possible to think that Obama just may be rethinking his stance on the issue? He obviously wants to repeat Clinton and get us back to a surplus, what if he comes out pro-legalization, it passes, and the economy jolts to life again?

While I do think legalizing weed would be a major boon to the economy(creating jobs and giving the states tax money, also saving on jail costs), no politician would campaign on that. They would be eaten alive by the soccer mom types if that was the logic they used to push legalization..