PDA

View Full Version : Should Cannabis/Marijuana be legalized?



aquajet16
9th May 2008, 8:29 PM
I think that marijuana should not be legalized because unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This dangerous itself. Also, there are many individuals addicted to marijuana who would resort to crime just to fund their drug addiction. If it were legalized, marijuana would be readily available thus, people will have more access to it. The legalization of marijuana will resort to increase in crime rate.

Although marijuana does have unhealthy and harmful effects, it is proven to be less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is also proven by research than nicotine in cigarettes is more addictive than marijuana. Also. the consumption of tobacco and alcohol cause more deaths than marijuana.

So should it be legalized or not?

Poliwag2
9th May 2008, 9:41 PM
Legalize it and tax the externalities. Use the revenue to educate; and the long term outcome would be optimal.

randomspot555
9th May 2008, 9:47 PM
I think that marijuana should not be legalized because unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This dangerous itself. Also, there are many individuals addicted to marijuana who would resort to crime just to fund their drug addiction. If it were legalized, marijuana would be readily available thus, people will have more access to it. The legalization of marijuana will resort to increase in crime rate.

Although marijuana does have unhealthy and harmful effects, it is proven to be less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is also proven by research than nicotine in cigarettes is more addictive than marijuana. Also. the consumption of tobacco and alcohol cause more deaths than marijuana.

So should it be legalized or not?

You say that marijuana addicts commit crimes now to get their fix...but if it was legal, they'd still commit crimes?

Also, alcohol and cigs can get people into altered states of conciousness too. That's the whole point of them.

The Admiral
9th May 2008, 9:52 PM
I think that marijuana should not be legalized because unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This dangerous itself.

Is it any more dangerous than being shitfaced? People who get stoned tend to not be violent.


Also, there are many individuals addicted to marijuana who would resort to crime just to fund their drug addiction. If it were legalized, marijuana would be readily available thus, people will have more access to it. The legalization of marijuana will resort to increase in crime rate.

Actually, there will be less people in jail if we legalize it, because they won't be arrested for possession thereof.


Although marijuana does have unhealthy and harmful effects, it is proven to be less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is also proven by research than nicotine in cigarettes is more addictive than marijuana. Also. the consumption of tobacco and alcohol cause more deaths than marijuana.

So should it be legalized or not?

It should be legalized, and we tax it, as stated previously. It might also eliminate those of us who do it just for how illegal it is...

Hunter_RuLe
9th May 2008, 10:44 PM
Marijuana should be legalized imo. Wether it is legal or not, it will be sold and used anyway. When it is legal it will be much easier to have some control on it. Overmore when weed is not legal this will raise the difficulty to get it and this will raise the market price and crime rate.

In the Netherlands we have already legalized this soft drugs and there are no significant drops in health/crime.

Noheart
9th May 2008, 11:03 PM
IMO, i beleive absolutely not. Except for marijuana, it has been proven to cure/treat certain eye infections/diseases, so unless its for a medical cause, i would say absolutely not. Drugs are a major problem, not just in america, but in some cases, a lot of countrys...

Hunter_RuLe
9th May 2008, 11:14 PM
IMO, i beleive absolutely not. Except for marijuana, it has been proven to cure/treat certain eye infections/diseases, so unless its for a medical cause, i would say absolutely not. Drugs are a major problem, not just in america, but in some cases, a lot of countrys...

Drugs are a problem, but don't you think them being illegal is part of the problem? If they where legalized drugs selling could be under better control and there could be better education about their effects. If people can't have something, they often tend to want it even more.

JakeSteel
9th May 2008, 11:21 PM
If people can't have something, they often tend to want it even more.

And if they can, other people tend to want it more. It depends on your prespective. People aren't going to go "Oh marijuana is legal now, let's stop". But people are gonna say "Whoa marijuana is legal now!?!?! Let's pick some up, man!"

Noheart
9th May 2008, 11:36 PM
Drugs are a problem, but don't you think them being illegal is part of the problem? If they where legalized drugs selling could be under better control and there could be better education about their effects. If people can't have something, they often tend to want it even more.

Almost every school, college, w/e, tells about drugs, there effects, how there dangerous. Being illegal isnt a problem, but for people are addicted, it should convince them to stop, or its downtown time for them

Hunter_RuLe
9th May 2008, 11:36 PM
And if they can, other people tend to want it more. It depends on your prespective. People aren't going to go "Oh marijuana is legal now, let's stop". But people are gonna say "Whoa marijuana is legal now!?!?! Let's pick some up, man!"

People who really want marijuana won't really care if it is legal or not, they will get it anyway. Legalizing it might only stimulate casual users to try it once or twise. I see no problem in this as it is no significant unhealhtier than using alcohol or tabacco. Overall I do not think legalizing will leed to much more addictives. Imo the pro's are better than the con's in this case.

Profesco
10th May 2008, 12:08 AM
After dozens of debates in which I have tried to defend my anti-drug position, I suppose I will change tack here.

Perhaps such illegal drugs should be legalized, so they then can be taxed. And more importantly, so they can be controlled. In fact, we should extend such strict controls on it that the desire for it becomes nearly nonexistent. Control it to destroy it. That's what I'd do.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 1:03 AM
And if they can, other people tend to want it more. It depends on your prespective. People aren't going to go "Oh marijuana is legal now, let's stop". But people are gonna say "Whoa marijuana is legal now!?!?! Let's pick some up, man!"and this is a problem how?

all im hearing is that "IT MAKES YOU HIGH AS A KITE" but that isnt a reason to illegalize it.

The_Panda
10th May 2008, 1:06 AM
I believe cannabis results in dire medical effects. People who say it's harmless really need to go do their homework; there have been meta-studies and analyses that clearly show that it is a hallucinogen and results in long term brain damage and possibly psychosis. The fact it's usually rolled into a joint with tobacco doesn't help either. I also doubt cannabis is a very good medical drug though I don't know enough about its pharmaceutical value to make a standing judgement. On the other hand though, I think it's somebody's right to harm their own bodies if they choose so, and I would also say that legalisation means we can control and monitor its usage, get it off the black-market, and cut off funding to organised crime.

Jazzy
10th May 2008, 1:26 AM
I agree with panda. If its legal, it will be grown by more companys meaning less funding for crime syndicates, people arnt as destroyed by it as it will probably be cheaper, and if it can be taxed then more money for the government. Yes, it has some long term negative effects, but its a persons right to choose to use it, just like smoking.

Heracross
10th May 2008, 1:39 AM
Yes, Cannabis should be legalized; it's much less harmful and addictive than alcohol or even caffeine. Hell, I could easily make a case that McDonalds is worse for you, but no one is trying to outlaw that. I don't see it happening though simply because the government can't make money off of it. Sure, they could try to tax it, but with people already growing it in their closets, who's gonna buy it from a corporation which would probably add addicting chemicals like they do with cigarettes?

Nidogod
10th May 2008, 2:04 AM
I feel that marijuana should not be made legal.

For one, it is indeed safer than cigarettes and alcohol (all things considered), but it is still not harmless. The smoke is extremely harsh on your lungs, and there are negative side-effects including the already mentioned psychosis as well as depression. The most common argument I see is people arguing that since it is healthier than cigarettes and less debilitating than alcohol it should be legal. These people are still comparing evils that after all things are considered are not healthy.

Alot of the people here are saying that with legalization it can be taxed and controlled, and thus reduce the underground selling of it as well as crimes committed because of it. I do agree with all that, although speaking from personal experience of people I know, I don't think that making it legal and so much more readily available will help. I've just seen too many people smoke occasionally.. smoke a little more.. smoke whenever they can get it.. and eventually smoke every day, use all their money, and just generally drop out of life life because of it. The anti-weed commercials take it way too far but it is true that people will become addicted, need it more and more, and just plain slow down. It can be handled maturely as well, but if it became much more readily available the percent of people dedicating their lives to it would spike.

I'm also seeing here that people say legalizing it will reduce the usage because it removes the thrill of doing it. But think of it this way: Would you want something that is very addictive and dangerous be made legal just because you think it will make people do it less? Would you want streetracing, something that is also dangerous, puts lives at risk, and is illegal to be legalized just because that might make streetracers lose the thrill and find another past time?

My general stance is that while it is illegal right now there are problems. Legalizing it may very well end alot of those problems, but at the same time add new ones. At the end of the day it is still unhealthy and dangerous and full legalization wouldn't really make things better, imo. I'd like to see the laws become more lax. Maybe not make possession such a heavy crime, or not arrest people caught in the act of smoking. I don't know. I prefer it to stay the way it is now rather than have it fully legal, at least.

For the record I used to smoke marijuana moderately, but as of now don't smoke any more. I don't have a problem with it, though. It was more a personal choice based on the people I know whose lives have been made much more difficult because of it.

Jazzy
10th May 2008, 2:09 AM
Your right with one point: makibng it legal doesnt remove the thrill. Cigarettes arnt illegal to smoke, many teenagers just do it to look cool.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 2:18 AM
what problem would legalizing it add? seriously. the notion that everybody will become pot heads is equivalent to saying everybody will be drunk since alcohol got allowed again.

doesnt seem like everybody's just getting drunk on their break off of work now.

firewall
10th May 2008, 2:22 AM
I feel that a substance such as this should not be legal for casual use but rather, like most "drugs" be limited to a medical use only. Such as narcotics; they are used in hospitals and are monitored closely-not for recreation.

Nidogod
10th May 2008, 2:24 AM
what problem would legalizing it add? seriously. the notion that everybody will become pot heads is equivalent to saying everybody will be drunk since alcohol got allowed again.


I clearly said that more people would be drawn in to it, not everyone. Take alcohol away and I bet you'd find the rate of people falling into alcoholism would drop as well.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 2:27 AM
do you have any idea of what happened when alcohol was banned? and then what happened when it was unbanned?

Heracross
10th May 2008, 2:27 AM
The thing that alcohol has tought us is that abolition really does lead to drastically increased rates of organized crime.

The_Panda
10th May 2008, 2:29 AM
do you have any idea of what happened when alcohol was banned? and then what happened when it was unbanned?

People had home distilleries, it was distributed by organised crime, sold underground, and led to a rise in rates of drinking.

And Heracross, I would like to see where you get the idea of Marijuana being harmless from... because really I would want to disagree based on personal experience and studies. Before I roll out my evidence, where do you get your idea from?

Heracross
10th May 2008, 2:36 AM
I didn't say it was completely harmless - hardly anything is. It just isn't as terrible as some people would have you believe, and certainly no worse for you than many widely accepted substances. The statement that it causes psychosis and depression is something I hear a lot, but what I see there is correlation, not causation.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 2:38 AM
panda, it was rhetorical.

The_Panda
10th May 2008, 2:54 AM
I didn't say it was completely harmless - hardly anything is. It just isn't as terrible as some people would have you believe, and certainly no worse for you than many widely accepted substances. The statement that it causes psychosis and depression is something I hear a lot, but what I see there is correlation, not causation.

Recently though in the British Journal Lancet an article was published, "Cannabis could increase risk of psychotic illness in later life by over 40 percent" [2007] that plainly concluded that those who smoke marijuana had a 41% higher chance of developing psychosis - and this wasn't a normal study it was a meta-analysis. Though the study does not make anything conclusive I would think it is enough to get a fair idea that there is a likely causation. However there are other environmental and genetic factors (such as a third factor to which both are casually related) that are possible, and the authors of the study acknowledge this. While by no means have causation been proved, I would think that 41% is at such an extent where the general public need to be seriously alerted over this.

TrueCharizard
10th May 2008, 3:04 AM
Every drug should be legal.

Do I mean you should take everything? No.

Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Heroin and some others are horribly dangerous. In general, I wouldn't recommend any drug if you value your livelihood or safety. Yet, I don't believe the government should be able to tell you what you can and cannot take.

In a study of dangerous substances though, MDMA (ecstacy) is ranked 17th most dangerous, Cannabis is 11th and LSD is 14th. In comparison, Alcohol is about 5th and cigarettes are about 7th.

There'd be a lot to gain from the taxing of cannabis and I don't think anybody should feel like a criminal for using it. What you do as a result of consuming it should make you a criminal (whether you suffer psychosis as a result of taking it and consequently do damage to somebody else).

As a drug user (guilty of smoking pot on a day to day basis, and I may have tried MDMA, LSD and magic mushrooms), I know myself I am pretty fair and honest. I work hard, I play hard. I don't steal/murder/rape anybody. I have a code of ethics and morals. Just how I treat my body and my mind should be my business, nobody else's.

Heracross
10th May 2008, 3:18 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/26/health/webmd/main3102653.shtml


"In general, the overall risk of someone getting a psychotic illness is about 3 percent," he says. "Now what this study is saying is that that 3% risk is increased by 40 percent [or more]," he says. So the risk with marijuana use would rise to 4.2 percent.

40 percent sounds like a big number, but when you look at the total percentage of the population at risk for developing psychotic illness it's pretty small, and other studies I've read [which I can't find at the moment] suggest that marijuana only causes psychosis to arise in people who are already prone to developing those issues regardless, not just anyone.

PsiUmbreon
10th May 2008, 3:28 AM
And if they can, other people tend to want it more. It depends on your prespective. People aren't going to go "Oh marijuana is legal now, let's stop". But people are gonna say "Whoa marijuana is legal now!?!?! Let's pick some up, man!"

Marijuana is very easy to get ahold of and hardly anyone gets busted. I think legalizing it would not have any negative effects. In fact it would have many positives. The prison system would be relieved of some of its burden, the government can control its use and tax it, and the cost would go down and this would hurt organized crime. Marijuana should totally be legal.

PsiUmbreon
10th May 2008, 3:35 AM
And if they can, other people tend to want it more. It depends on your prespective. People aren't going to go "Oh marijuana is legal now, let's stop". But people are gonna say "Whoa marijuana is legal now!?!?! Let's pick some up, man!"

Marijuana is very easy to get ahold of anyway and hardly anyone gets busted. It might as well be legal. I think legalizing it would not have any negative effects. In fact it would have many positives. The prison system would be relieved of some of its burden, the government can control its use and tax it, and the cost would go down and this would hurt organized crime. Marijuana should totally be legal.

Strants
10th May 2008, 3:46 AM
Banning alcohol actually caused people to ignore other laws, such as speed limits, thinking that the government was crazy, and crazy people should not be trusted.

I personally, would not use drugs; I want to remain in control of a working body for as long as I can. But if other people do, it really isn't my business. Here's my opinion: if marijuana was legalized, those who do it would keep doing it, some other people might, and those who are against it (like me) would still not do it. By this logic, shouldn't we ban soda, gum, and sugar, because they are 'bad?'

Nidogod
10th May 2008, 3:57 AM
do you have any idea of what happened when alcohol was banned? and then what happened when it was unbanned?

Yes, I do, and we are also talking about a different time and a different substance that hadn't been legally used for hundreds of years before the ban. From going through grade school, high school, and college, I've seen that people pick up habits when they are convenient to be picked up. I live in an area that is small and clean. There was no drug use in my elementary school and all the kids were clean. When highschool came around we were mixed in with the kids from surrounding poor areas and drugs became more readily available. From that point there was a wave of kids from my area who picked up on the convenient new marijuana and just let it take them over. There were still some kids who stayed isolated outside those people. As of last year most of them went to college, possibly the easiest place for a middle class kid to find weed. A large portion of them now smoke daily, are doing terrible in school, and some are even on academic probation and are about ready to get kicked out. That's what I base my statements on. They didn't go out looking for it because it was illegal, they happily accepted it when it was served to them on a silver platter. That's why I feel that making it legal would give more more easy access to people who otherwise wouldn't have gone out searching for it. With prohibition we got rid of something the nation embraced and relied on. It's only obvious that there would be a negative reprocussion. Even today there would be people who would drink more if prohibition came back, I'm not arguing against that. Then again, it's lots of times much easier for someone under the age of 21 to get weed than alcohol even when alcohol is legal. With that in mind I'd assume less young people would slip into alcoholism if it was banned again. If simple homebrewing isn't already being used by minors to obtain alcohol it shouldn't ever be a problem as it would still be just as legal to them.

muumajii23
10th May 2008, 4:04 AM
It's gonna become legal anyways.... Look at tobacco and alcohol. They were BOTH illegal at one point in time.... If I remember correctly. o.O

GrizzlyB
10th May 2008, 5:11 AM
My... there certainly are more stoners here than I would have expected.

Anyways, legalizing marijuana is a pretty all-around stupid idea. To those who say it should be legalized and then taxed, bear in mind that to generate enough money to make the idea of legalizing something like marijuana appealing, the tax rate would have to be very significant. So significant, in fact, that most people would probably still go to dealers. Save money and keep the man from keepin' you down. Righteous! Oh, whoops, the underground ring is still there. And no taxes, either. :(

And those who say it's safer than alcohol, is so widespread already, and little harm, busting, or whatever has come of it, note that this is because marijuana is illegal. I mean, of course there are more drunk-driving accidents than stoned-driving accidents; you can have a drinking night out on the town, stumble out of a bar, hop into your car and try to make it home. With marijuana, you're already in your den, incense burning, blinds pulled, contemplating your fingernails' growth. Now, legalize marijuana, you're having a night on the town, stumble out of a weed den, hop into your car, and drive home... whilst contemplating your fingernails' growth. Real safe.

And how are we supposed to control it better by legalizing it? We already have the most stringent control possible on it. That logic's definitely asking for trouble.

Besides these rebuttals, marijuana should definitely be kept illegal due to the significant impact it has on those around the smoker. I'm fairly certain that driving stoned is about as dangerous as driving drunk. And people in public would be adversely affected by nearby smokers. Granted, these properties are obviously shared by alcohol and tobacco, respectively, but there is no way that they could be banned effectively. As much as I'd like to cite detriments on health as reason against legalizing marijuana, it really is an individual choice. Yet, when the liberties of others are placed into the equation, it's a definite no-no, especially when combined with the real lack of logic behind legalization.

Nidogod
10th May 2008, 5:35 AM
I'm fairly certain that driving stoned is about as dangerous as driving drunk.

Outside of your reflex time being slowed down it's pretty safe. Pretty much everyone I know who smokes drives high and feels they are a better driver when they are. It makes you more relaxed and more attentive to detail. I'm not advocating driving stoned, but it's pretty much the same as driving sober, whereas driving drunk is extremely dangerous.

GrizzlyB
10th May 2008, 6:04 AM
Outside of your reflex time being slowed down it's pretty safe. Pretty much everyone I know who smokes drives high and feels they are a better driver when they are. It makes you more relaxed and more attentive to detail. I'm not advocating driving stoned, but it's pretty much the same as driving sober, whereas driving drunk is extremely dangerous.

Well, all it takes is one second, one missed reflex, and you've run over a group of orphans. And, since weed's illegal, if you're driving, that attention to detail is bound to go towards not screwing up and getting pulled over. Who knows if your attention would stay on driving or fixate on the bobblehead if getting pulled over wouldn't be so bad?

Profesco
10th May 2008, 9:31 AM
doesnt seem like everybody's just getting drunk on their break off of work now.

Well, alcohol has kept a bit of a reputation as a social pasttime. People don't drink on their breaks- they smoke. Marijuana would fit the role of the cigarette better, and so it might be safe to assume that people would be more often getting high on their breaks.

And GrizzlyB brings up a point about smoking that I often think about. While it's true we can't easily limit a person's personal choices, smoking has effects that extend beyond the user. The simplest is, well, the smoke. At my college, the campus has plenty of designated smoking sites outside, and all of them are tucked away from the high-traffic areas. But students ignore the big red-and-white signs that say "No Smoking" and puff their cigarettes right outside the doors of the building. They are, in my point of view, infringeing on the rights of those who choose not to smoke. If I was speaking to one of them, I would say, "You can smoke; that's your choice. But it's my choice to not have to hold my breath or breathe in your toxic waste every time I enter or leave a building."

Hunter_RuLe
10th May 2008, 9:57 AM
I strongly believe adults should have the freedom to buy these soft drugs. Most adults are responsible enough to deal with the consequences, or they atleast should be. When you drink alcohol responsively, this leads to not much harm, and the same could be said about cannabis. You don't see much people on the streets druken and there certanly aren't at much crimes about alcohol now it is legal compared to the illegale drugs.

Overall legalizing is just better for the control and education of the drug imo.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 12:57 PM
nidogod, if it was legalized, it would be easier to restrict it from minors.


My... there certainly are more stoners here than I would have expected.making an *** out of u and me.


Anyways, legalizing marijuana is a pretty all-around stupid idea. To those who say it should be legalized and then taxed, bear in mind that to generate enough money to make the idea of legalizing something like marijuana appealing, the tax rate would have to be very significant. So significant, in fact, that most people would probably still go to dealers. Save money and keep the man from keepin' you down. Righteous! Oh, whoops, the underground ring is still there. And no taxes, either. :(well, i dont see how this is in anyway bad.


And those who say it's safer than alcohol, is so widespread already, and little harm, busting, or whatever has come of it, note that this is because marijuana is illegal. I mean, of course there are more drunk-driving accidents than stoned-driving accidents; you can have a drinking night out on the town, stumble out of a bar, hop into your car and try to make it home. With marijuana, you're already in your den, incense burning, blinds pulled, contemplating your fingernails' growth. Now, legalize marijuana, you're having a night on the town, stumble out of a weed den, hop into your car, and drive home... whilst contemplating your fingernails' growth. Real safe.i personally never heard too many weed-drive accidents but this is no reason to keep it illegal. you do more harm making it illegal.


And how are we supposed to control it better by legalizing it? We already have the most stringent control possible on it. That logic's definitely asking for trouble.youre not thinking. we have better control over it when its legal because we can give out licenses and actually have a better idea of what to do. once its illegal, you have no way of doing this. you just get anybody who has it; which causes more trouble than it should be.


Besides these rebuttals, marijuana should definitely be kept illegal due to the significant impact it has on those around the smoker.not an argument. just saying that its real bad to the smoker. big deal. its the right to do it.

TrueCharizard
10th May 2008, 12:59 PM
I strongly believe adults should have the freedom to buy these soft drugs. Most adults are responsible enough to deal with the consequences, or they atleast should be. When you drink alcohol responsively, this leads to not much harm, and the same could be said about cannabis. You don't see much people on the streets druken and there certanly aren't at much crimes about alcohol now it is legal compared to the illegale drugs.

Overall legalizing is just better for the control and education of the drug imo.

This. MDMA, LSD and Cannabis have been proven to be far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. As someone who has experience in all of these areas, I can say now that alcohol is the worst possible thing for you out of all of these things.

There is no reason for a government to be able to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own mind and body. Tax it, put the money in medicine and law enforcement. Redirect the already existing law enforcement concentrating on the war on drugs against harder drugs and the other problems with society.

Of course, this will never happen because people are painfully short sighted and governments are becoming more and more global. They get tied into things like UN charters which just mess with everybody's freedom.

For the record, I am by almost all other means a fairly good person. I'll try and help people just as much as a strongly Christian one would.

SlipKnoT
10th May 2008, 1:05 PM
I'm for making it legal. Cigarettes and alchohol are both addicting and harmful yet they're perfectly legal, I don't see why marijuana, the lesser of three evils, shouldn't be legal. People do it now anyway, making it legal and taxing it would serve as a benefit.

TrueCharizard
10th May 2008, 1:15 PM
My... there certainly are more stoners here than I would have expected.

Anyways, legalizing marijuana is a pretty all-around stupid idea. To those who say it should be legalized and then taxed, bear in mind that to generate enough money to make the idea of legalizing something like marijuana appealing, the tax rate would have to be very significant. So significant, in fact, that most people would probably still go to dealers. Save money and keep the man from keepin' you down. Righteous! Oh, whoops, the underground ring is still there. And no taxes, either. :(

And those who say it's safer than alcohol, is so widespread already, and little harm, busting, or whatever has come of it, note that this is because marijuana is illegal. I mean, of course there are more drunk-driving accidents than stoned-driving accidents; you can have a drinking night out on the town, stumble out of a bar, hop into your car and try to make it home. With marijuana, you're already in your den, incense burning, blinds pulled, contemplating your fingernails' growth. Now, legalize marijuana, you're having a night on the town, stumble out of a weed den, hop into your car, and drive home... whilst contemplating your fingernails' growth. Real safe.

And how are we supposed to control it better by legalizing it? We already have the most stringent control possible on it. That logic's definitely asking for trouble.

Besides these rebuttals, marijuana should definitely be kept illegal due to the significant impact it has on those around the smoker. I'm fairly certain that driving stoned is about as dangerous as driving drunk. And people in public would be adversely affected by nearby smokers. Granted, these properties are obviously shared by alcohol and tobacco, respectively, but there is no way that they could be banned effectively. As much as I'd like to cite detriments on health as reason against legalizing marijuana, it really is an individual choice. Yet, when the liberties of others are placed into the equation, it's a definite no-no, especially when combined with the real lack of logic behind legalization.

Lets test your taxes/money concern.

In Denmark, a dealer can pick up about a kilogram of cannabis for around £600. He then sells off the weed at around £2 a gram.

That's a massive profit.

The reason why dealers in other countries charge so much is because they have to deal with the risk of being caught/arrested and jailed. Then you also have so many middle men who are also putting themselves at risk. That means the price of weed is huge. Now, you get a company who grows weed in a natural fashion, treats it well then it can be regulated.

Often enough you can get bad weed, either sprayed with glass, sand or even bits of plastic. That is far far worse for your lungs than regular weed.

Look at Amsterdam, a country where weed is decriminalized/minds are lenient towards it. The statistics suggest that there are no major health problems (other than a suggested increase of psychosis) in comparison to other countries due to cannabis consumption.

As for the stoned driving thing, the reason why it is linked is because marujuiana stays in your system for a long time. It does not necessarily mean the drivers were stoned at the wheel and were necessarily bad drivers. Some people may actually drive better under the influence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJx0GqR3P_o

Also, your ignorance is profound. Weed den? No, there are crack/skag dens. Most people who smoke weed will do it at home.

Now I'll be honest, I don't have any illusions that there aren't problems that can develop from consumption of cannabis (depression, schizophrenia can ensue), but I do think there are more problems from it being illegal. Someone who smokes weed shouldn't have any worry from the law. Some who sells it probably wouldn't if it were legal. Without any risk, there's no reason why there would be profit to be made from the way the criminal system works at the moment. Chances are, growth of cannabis would be a bit like mass farming if it were legal.

Right now with there being a reduction in smokers, the government is going to need tax money. Lets not be stupid and lets stop tampering with people's freedom.

TrueCharizard
10th May 2008, 1:17 PM
And, since weed's illegal, if you're driving, that attention to detail is bound to go towards not screwing up and getting pulled over.

Well done for undoing your own argument.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 1:18 PM
truecharizard, try not to double post.

TrueCharizard
10th May 2008, 1:28 PM
Recently though in the British Journal Lancet an article was published, "Cannabis could increase risk of psychotic illness in later life by over 40 percent" [2007] that plainly concluded that those who smoke marijuana had a 41% higher chance of developing psychosis - and this wasn't a normal study it was a meta-analysis. Though the study does not make anything conclusive I would think it is enough to get a fair idea that there is a likely causation. However there are other environmental and genetic factors (such as a third factor to which both are casually related) that are possible, and the authors of the study acknowledge this. While by no means have causation been proved, I would think that 41% is at such an extent where the general public need to be seriously alerted over this.

To quote another study:
"Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

And

At www.badscience.net, Ben Goldacre wryly notes that “You know when cannabis hits the news you’re in for a bit of fun…” Of 175 studies identified as potentially relevant, Goldacre maintains that only 11 papers, describing 7 discrete data sets, actually turned to be relevant for purposes of the study. If every assumption in the paper is taken to be correct, and causality is accepted, Goldacre calculated, about 800 cases of schizophrenia per year could be attributed to marijuana in the U.K. “But what’s really important,” Goldacre writes, “is what you do with this data. Firstly you can misrepresent it….not least of all with the ridiculous ‘modern cannabis is 25 times stronger’ fabrication so beloved by the media and politicians.”

All in all though:
Legalize it, use taxes money to educate and deal with health issues. Remove the underground/social stigma of drug using and only those who really enjoy the effects will smoke (I know plenty who smoke to act "cool", they'd probably not bother if it were legal).

The_Panda
10th May 2008, 2:26 PM
I'm for making it legal. Cigarettes and alchohol are both addicting and harmful yet they're perfectly legal, I don't see why marijuana, the lesser of three evils, shouldn't be legal. People do it now anyway, making it legal and taxing it would serve as a benefit.

One of the differences being the hallucinogenic properties of marijuana are very serious for those around you.

Heracross firstly, a forty percent risk increase is a definitely large increase. Certainly one that can;t be ignored or brushed aside.


To quote another study:
"Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

And

At www.badscience.net, Ben Goldacre wryly notes that “You know when cannabis hits the news you’re in for a bit of fun…” Of 175 studies identified as potentially relevant, Goldacre maintains that only 11 papers, describing 7 discrete data sets, actually turned to be relevant for purposes of the study. If every assumption in the paper is taken to be correct, and causality is accepted, Goldacre calculated, about 800 cases of schizophrenia per year could be attributed to marijuana in the U.K. “But what’s really important,” Goldacre writes, “is what you do with this data. Firstly you can misrepresent it….not least of all with the ridiculous ‘modern cannabis is 25 times stronger’ fabrication so beloved by the media and politicians.”

Could I have links to the actual papers rather than plain references? Because there would be something wrong between the Lancet paper and the link you are mentioning yet have not provided. The Lancet paper is very easy to locate on the internet, comments on a site are not. If we are to compare the two, links?

On what we should do with Marijuana - legalise it, having it illegal is pointless. Tax revenue (people who say people will go for the cheaper underground option need to rethink their logic: when something is underground things are far more expensive) can go to education campaigns: and not any education campaign. Kids need to know that cannabis, cigarettes, alcohol et cetera are serious business. They need to know everything: the effects (down to every detail. Showing them pictures of gangrenous limbs and a dead smoker's lungs works) in no sort of wishy washy way. Misconceptions like cannabis is harmless, smoking only affects old people, drinking for just one night won't hurt et cetera need to be debunked by teachers right from the start. And if it means having exams thus forcing kids to learn this stuff then so be it (likely included in a science exam). However along with this, we need to teach kids things like how to drink alcohol safely, how to resist peer pressure, et cetera. The problem with education campaigns now is that they are far too weak. Without being tested on them, there is no incentive to learn - kids just daze through the programme.

.TraX.
10th May 2008, 3:07 PM
I've never seen a stoned guy beat his wife.

More than I can say for the other legal drugs.

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 6:54 PM
Crimes only happen when you restrict the people. Of course, anarchy would be absurd, but I think the government needs to meet people halfway. Take alcohol consumption for one. Minors only drink obscene amounts of alcohol because they aren't allowed to. Think about it; in a world where breaking the rules is the 'cool' thing to do, if we relax the rules a smidge, I think there would actually be less drunk drivers on the road. It's the same thing with drugs like marijuana.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 6:55 PM
lowering the age increases drunk driving. that was already attempted.

Shinin
10th May 2008, 7:03 PM
This. MDMA, LSD and Cannabis have been proven to be far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. As someone who has experience in all of these areas, I can say now that alcohol is the worst possible thing for you out of all of these things.

I'd beg to differ about MDMA, but the thing about those three that makes them different from alcohol is that they cause you to enter a state where you could possibly harm yourself or others with less of it than alcohol, not to mention that that's the only reason one would take those drugs. Some people drink alcohol without getting drunk, while there's no reason to do those drugs unless you want to get high.

GrizzlyB
10th May 2008, 11:03 PM
Everybody's after me...


making an *** out of u and me.

It's not assuming if they explicitly state it. And you're assuming that I have assumed an amount that is assumably greater than what I actually assumed. I assume.


well, i dont see how this is in anyway bad.

Except for the part where legalizing marijuana gives absolutely no benefits, right?


i personally never heard too many weed-drive accidents but this is no reason to keep it illegal. you do more harm making it illegal.

The exact reason there aren't many weed-drive accidents is because marijuana is illegal, as opposed to alcohol.


youre not thinking. we have better control over it when its legal because we can give out licenses and actually have a better idea of what to do. once its illegal, you have no way of doing this. you just get anybody who has it; which causes more trouble than it should be.

You're not thinking. If someone wanted to, they would just bypass any sort of license and do whatever the hell they wanted. Then, if they do get caught breaking the controls brought on by a license by not having one, it's just a relative slap on the wrist for selling without a license, 'cause weed's legal.


not an argument. just saying that its real bad to the smoker. big deal. its the right to do it.

No, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. It's anybody's freedom to do what they want, until that freedom infringes on the rights of others.


The reason why dealers in other countries charge so much is because they have to deal with the risk of being caught/arrested and jailed. Then you also have so many middle men who are also putting themselves at risk. That means the price of weed is huge. Now, you get a company who grows weed in a natural fashion, treats it well then it can be regulated.

Okay... and then all those factors that drive the price of weed up disappear upon it being made legal. Then, after that, any legitimate marijuana-peddling business would have to apply sales taxes, as well as the other taxes because legalizing it was such a good idea, and there you have it. Getting from a dealer is much cheaper.

Besides that, you failed to address taxes in any way.


Also, your ignorance is profound. Weed den? No, there are crack/skag dens. Most people who smoke weed will do it at home.


I said weed den jokingly, my prediction of what would be to marijuana what bars are to alcohol. And, don't most people smoke at home precisely because it is illegal?


Right now with there being a reduction in smokers, the government is going to need tax money. Lets not be stupid and lets stop tampering with people's freedom.


Even more so, people and the economy are going to need money. Let's not be stupid and create an imported and heavily taxed market.


Well done for undoing your own argument.


I undid my own argument how exactly?


(people who say people will go for the cheaper underground option need to rethink their logic: when something is underground things are far more expensive)

Except that the "underground" wouldn't really be very underground if marijuana was legal. All the dealers would really have to do is slightly undercut prices from licensed retailers to bring the customers in in droves.

Also, Panda, in America (the crux of all my arguments, incidentally), we already have a program pretty much just like you described, called D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). It's mandatory in many schools here, and, in summary, is pretty much useless. The vast, vast majority of kids take up some form of drug within a few years of the classes at best, and its cost is in the billions of dollars. Frankly, I don't think any program will ever do any better than D.A.R.E., and to try would really be an even bigger waste of money.


I've never seen a stoned guy beat his wife.

More than I can say for the other legal drugs.

Yeah, tobacco smokers are real wife-beaters.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 11:15 PM
Except for the part where legalizing marijuana gives absolutely no benefits, right?medical use, less crime rate, more money for the government, easier to restrict from minors, etc.


The exact reason there aren't many weed-drive accidents is because marijuana is illegal, as opposed to alcohol.dont be silly. whether its illegal or not is besides the point; people still get it. we should still be able to see it happen.


You're not thinking. If someone wanted to, they would just bypass any sort of license and do whatever the hell they wanted. Then, if they do get caught breaking the controls brought on by a license by not having one, it's just a relative slap on the wrist for selling without a license, 'cause weed's legal.or they risk losing their license to sell weed. its no different from selling cigarettes. they will gain more prophet doing whats right compared to doing whats wrong. money controls people that way.


No, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. It's anybody's freedom to do what they want, until that freedom infringes on the rights of others.and yet nobody's rights are infringed upon in privacy.


Okay... and then all those factors that drive the price of weed up disappear upon it being made legal. Then, after that, any legitimate marijuana-peddling business would have to apply sales taxes, as well as the other taxes because legalizing it was such a good idea, and there you have it. Getting from a dealer is much cheaper.do we even see this sort of things with cigarettes that much?

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 12:00 AM
medical use, less crime rate, more money for the government, easier to restrict from minors, etc.

Okay, I'll give you medical use and lowered crime. But, if people go through dealers anyway, like I said (and I'm certain they won't just go away), the government will generate no extra revenue, because they can't tax dealers. And I doubt very much that dealers would have qualms with selling to minors, either.


dont be silly. whether its illegal or not is besides the point; people still get it. we should still be able to see it happen.

The point is that since marijuana is illicit, people tend to not be doing it out in public like they would with alcohol. You're completely missing the point.


or they risk losing their license to sell weed. its no different from selling cigarettes. they will gain more prophet doing whats right compared to doing whats wrong. money controls people that way.

They don't have a license, that's the idea. They won't owe taxes or follow regulations. That means less payable and an automatic exclusive market, respectively. Sounds like profit.


and yet nobody's rights are infringed upon in privacy.

Do you honestly believe that if marijuana was legalized, everybody would go out, buy a pack of joints or whatever, then go back home and have a quiet smoke in the parlor? And, just to say (though it doesn't apply to this instance), rights can and are infringed in privacy.


do we even see this sort of things with cigarettes that much?

I don't know. Is there an underground cigarette market that I'm not aware of?

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:08 AM
Think about it; in a world where breaking the rules is the 'cool' thing to do, if we relax the rules a smidge, I think there would actually be less drunk drivers on the road. It's the same thing with drugs like marijuana.

I think we ought to focus on making "breaking the rules" less of a cool thing to do, rather than getting rid of the rules altogether...

I'm on your side, GrizzlyB! I think.


Also, Panda, in America (the crux of all my arguments, incidentally), we already have a program pretty much just like you described, called D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). It's mandatory in many schools here, and, in summary, is pretty much useless. The vast, vast majority of kids take up some form of drug within a few years of the classes at best, and its cost is in the billions of dollars. Frankly, I don't think any program will ever do any better than D.A.R.E., and to try would really be an even bigger waste of money.

The funny thing about this is that Panda's a huge critic of the D.A.R.E. system! Yet that's the embodiment of what he was arguing for!

*giggles*

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:14 AM
Okay, I'll give you medical use and lowered crime. But, if people go through dealers anyway, like I said (and I'm certain they won't just go away), the government will generate no extra revenue, because they can't tax dealers. And I doubt very much that dealers would have qualms with selling to minors, either.more legal drugs will be bought than underground ones, so yes, they will gain revenue. how do you honestly expect to get something legal IN AMERICA without being taxed for it? an underground dealer? how did he get HIS weed? what about the dealer's dealer? it all has to come from somewhere; be it through america or another country and if it was another country, thats not really a problem. we still gain revenue.


The point is that since marijuana is illicit, people tend to not be doing it out in public like they would with alcohol. You're completely missing the point.and youre missing the point that if people have a way of getting weed, weed-driving should be around.


They don't have a license, that's the idea. They won't owe taxes or follow regulations. That means less payable and an automatic exclusive market, respectively. Sounds like profit.how can they make a profit when they have to buy the weed and sell it for a higher price when the people wanting weed can just go buy it legally?


Do you honestly believe that if marijuana was legalized, everybody would go out, buy a pack of joints or whatever, then go back home and have a quiet smoke in the parlor?what do you think theyd do then?


And, just to say (though it doesn't apply to this instance), rights can and are infringed in privacy.tell me how masturbating in my bed room infringes on any right you have at this moment.


I don't know. Is there an underground cigarette market that I'm not aware of?good question! are there that many?

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:18 AM
tell me how masturbating in my bed room infringes on any right you have at this moment.

Oh... Come on, GhostAnime, show a little class...

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 12:45 AM
more legal drugs will be bought than underground ones, so yes, they will gain revenue. how do you honestly expect to get something legal IN AMERICA without being taxed for it? an underground dealer? how did he get HIS weed? what about the dealer's dealer? it all has to come from somewhere; be it through america or another country and if it was another country, thats not really a problem. we still gain revenue.

It's not a question of "more" or "less", it's an absolute value. Low retail sales means low tax collection. And of course it's going to be taxed, in a legal instance. If you buy a bike or something from an acquaintance, they aren't going to tax you and send that money to the government. And how will America make money off legalizing marijuana, regardless of whether or not an underground market exists? You've said it yourself, people buy and smoke weed all the time already, it's coming into the country, but the government isn't collecting a cent, other than in fines for possession and the like.


and youre missing the point that if people have a way of getting weed, weed-driving should be around.

Because nobody worries about getting caught with marijuana possession and paraphernalia, amirite?


how can they make a profit when they have to buy the weed and sell it for a higher price when the people wanting weed can just go buy it legally?

Because they can still undercut the prices offered by retailers, as well as sell to minors, making it more appealing to buy from them.


what do you think theyd do then?

Get stoned in public, mayhap?


tell me how masturbating in my bed room infringes on any right you have at this moment.

Tell me how restraining and beating somebody in the privacy of your home doesn't infringe upon their rights.


good question! are there that many?

I dunno. There sure are marijuana markets, though.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:51 AM
Because nobody worries about getting caught with marijuana possession and paraphernalia, amirite?

During one of the VERY few times I've been inside a "Spencer's Gifts" store, I saw that they sold plenty of marijuana merchandise, including clothing adorned with the leaf image, as well as containers and display cases for one's "stash." Display cases for a stash of illegal drugs, I tell you!

I was quite affronted by that.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:55 AM
It's not a question of "more" or "less", it's an absolute value. Low retail sales means low tax collection. And of course it's going to be taxed, in a legal instance. If you buy a bike or something from an acquaintance, they aren't going to tax you and send that money to the government. And how will America make money off legalizing marijuana, regardless of whether or not an underground market exists? You've said it yourself, people buy and smoke weed all the time already, it's coming into the country, but the government isn't collecting a cent, other than in fines for possession and the like.i dont see a single argument that says the government wont get money from taxing a new legal substance. how about you highlight it or actually state one.


Because nobody worries about getting caught with marijuana possession and paraphernalia, amirite?you didnt refute anything here. why does drunk driving exist within teenagers when its illegal for them to have alcohol?


Because they can still undercut the prices offered by retailers, as well as sell to minors, making it more appealing to buy from them.1) explain how they make a profit (at least more than the legal sellers) when they have to buy the weed and sell it more than they bought it. thus costing more than legal weed.

2) minor use will be LESS. im not saying minors wont get it, but it will be equivalent to minors smoking.


Get stoned in public, mayhap?okay. so?


Tell me how restraining and beating somebody in the privacy of your home doesn't infringe upon their rights.now youre just giving something that i never agreed with in the first place in ANY of my points. doing something in the privacy of my home when it harms nobody around me in that home is perfectly fine to any fair person.


I dunno. There sure are marijuana markets, though.uh, right. what argument was this again.. ?

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 12:57 AM
During one of the VERY few times I've been inside a "Spencer's Gifts" store, I saw that they sold plenty of marijuana merchandise, including clothing adorned with the leaf image, as well as containers and display cases for one's "stash." Display cases for a stash of illegal drugs, I tell you!

I was quite affronted by that.

Yeah, but in those instances, it's just a picture (very much free speech) or they can say it's used for tobacco or something, even if it's blatantly not. If there's marijuana on it, or even in the vicinity, I believe, there's really no way to argue out of that, which would be the case if you were smoking and got pulled over. Besides, regardless, you're getting possession and usage (if they're separate, not sure) if you get caught smoking, which there is a pretty good chance of in public.

The_Panda
11th May 2008, 2:30 AM
I oppose D.A.R.E. and similar programmes because they go no where near far enough and they're simply not effective. Kids don't learn anything unless you make sure they do. If you have an exam, which you will have to re-sit if you fail, they'll learn it. Away with the liberal wishy-washy anti-exam talk. Tests work and they always have.

Rensch
11th May 2008, 11:57 AM
I believe it should be legalized.

Here in Holland we have a system that isn't without it's flaws. A common misconception that I hear from a lot of foreign people is that marihuana/cannabis are legal here. That is not true. It is legal to buy it in coffeeshops, but it's illegal for the coffeeshop-owners to buy it from dealers. As some people say: the back door is illegal, not the front door.

This is an ultimately ridiculous system if you ask me. It has never been fully legalized because of conservative lobbies.

There are two options now, ban it or fully legalize it.

The softdrugs-industry earns our economy millions upon millions a year. If we banned it, it would be very harmful to our economy. Although it's partly illegal, many economists say it could be a bad idea to ban it.

If we fully legalized it, we could take it out of the criminal circuit and use government regulation to apply rules to it. This would make it easier to convict thoe violating the laws.

So I don't think there is anything essentailly wrong with legal softdrugs if tobacco and alcohol are legal, but make sure that once you legalize it, you're pretty much stuck with it within a few years because of economical reasons.

TrueCharizard
11th May 2008, 1:34 PM
Except for the part where legalizing marijuana gives absolutely no benefits, right?



The exact reason there aren't many weed-drive accidents is because marijuana is illegal, as opposed to alcohol.



You're not thinking. If someone wanted to, they would just bypass any sort of license and do whatever the hell they wanted. Then, if they do get caught breaking the controls brought on by a license by not having one, it's just a relative slap on the wrist for selling without a license, 'cause weed's legal

Okay... and then all those factors that drive the price of weed up disappear upon it being made legal. Then, after that, any legitimate marijuana-peddling business would have to apply sales taxes, as well as the other taxes because legalizing it was such a good idea, and there you have it. Getting from a dealer is much cheaper.

Besides that, you failed to address taxes in any way.



I said weed den jokingly, my prediction of what would be to marijuana what bars are to alcohol. And, don't most people smoke at home precisely because it is illegal?



Even more so, people and the economy are going to need money. Let's not be stupid and create an imported and heavily taxed market.



I undid my own argument how exactly?







Everybody wouldn't be after you if you had any depth to your argument.

You undid your own argument by talking about cannabis being illegal and therefore potentially causing a driving risk by drivers fearing for being chased by police. The key phrase is the being illegal part. Drivers would not be fearing if the drug was legal.

About economy and taxes:

How can you be so sure it would be a heavily imported market? Weed is a plant that can grow anywhere, you take a patch of land, sort out the soil and take care of your plant and it will grow. There, you now have jobs for people farming the plant, collecting and transporting it to cafes where it will now be sold. Thats at least three jobs you've created. Go economy!

Look at Amsterdam, there they have a healthy system of taxation on their weed. People do not need to go to dealers because they can access good quality, well grown and non-tampered with product. Therefore, they won't. The worst comes to worst, people will grow their own, which to me is a lot better than going to a dealer who may spray the plant with sand or glass, causing harmful effects to the user.

In general, yes there may be dealers who attempt to undercut cafes and weed bars, but as a whole dodgy dealing would be undoubtedly reduced. As to why people use it at home is that you don't need to be in new places or meet new people, it creates a fascination with everything, a sense of relaxedness and generally you don't need to move too much.

Your whole point about freedom and infringing on the rights of others is null and void. By having cannabis illegal, it creates a whole criminal scene that can involve gang shoot outs that can result in innocent bystanders dying. The criminal mindset can go hand in hand with the selling of the drug because people are always suspicious the police will be onto them.

Like I said, the main health concerns are with psychosis. Which, yes if someone is nuts they could be a danger to other people. However, with only 800 cases a year in Britain related to cannabis in comparison to the 2 million who smoke it, I think this is a relatively low risk. The whole argument about new strains of cannabis being stronger is nonsense. People nowadays are turning to "weed", or "skunk" as opposed to the much stronger "hash" or "resin". If people smoke in designated smoking areas as well, they are less likely to pollute people with second hand smoke. As for fear of being attacked by a stoner, I wouldn't worry too much. Whilst high, one is generally much more peaceful and gains a sense of laziness which would mean they wouldn't have the effort to attack.

There are questions as to the lung problems with cannabis, but the smoke affects a different part of the lungs to regular cigarettes and scientists are finding evidence that this part is less likely to develop cancerous growth. In addition, there is evidence to suggest there are anti-cancer cells in cannabis:

"A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk. The results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors.[85]

Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[86]

A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors.[87] Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[88] However, a contrasting 2000 study linked the smoking of cannabis to the growth of cancerous tumors through the impairment of anti-tumor defenses.[89]"

Also, read the post above me. The system is not without its flaws, but its damn better than having it illega.

UmbreonLord
11th May 2008, 2:18 PM
IMO, i beleive absolutely not. Except for marijuana, it has been proven to cure/treat certain eye infections/diseases, so unless its for a medical cause, i would say absolutely not. Drugs are a major problem, not just in america, but in some cases, a lot of countrys...

Yeah, I agree. Drugs are terrible unless they're things like paracetamol. Cannabis shouldn't be legalized and neither should marijuna because even if it was legal, dealers would disappear, but the crime levels will still be the same in the USA and the other countries effected by drugs

$Cash$
11th May 2008, 2:23 PM
Cannabis and marijuana are the same thing
Dealers would disappear and we could go to the store and pick up a nice bag of weed =D
Organized crime would take a hit to their profits but a lot of their money comes from other drugs

Isaac
11th May 2008, 3:29 PM
After dozens of debates in which I have tried to defend my anti-drug position, I suppose I will change tack here.

Perhaps such illegal drugs should be legalized, so they then can be taxed. And more importantly, so they can be controlled. In fact, we should extend such strict controls on it that the desire for it becomes nearly nonexistent. Control it to destroy it. That's what I'd do.

Now normally I would say it should be illegal, but yah that would be a great idea.

GrizzlyB
12th May 2008, 4:33 AM
Everybody wouldn't be after you if you had any depth to your argument.

Or if I had taken the pro-legalizing stance.


You undid your own argument by talking about cannabis being illegal and therefore potentially causing a driving risk by drivers fearing for being chased by police. The key phrase is the being illegal part. Drivers would not be fearing if the drug was legal.

No, I said people were safer now, with marijuana illegal, because if they were being casual/unsafe about it, they would get caught with an illicit substance. If weed was legalized, they would not care about being caught, and therefore not drive as cautiously under its influence. How many times must I reiterate this?


How can you be so sure it would be a heavily imported market? Weed is a plant that can grow anywhere, you take a patch of land, sort out the soil and take care of your plant and it will grow. There, you now have jobs for people farming the plant, collecting and transporting it to cafes where it will now be sold. Thats at least three jobs you've created. Go economy!

Because now, of all times, is not the time to be setting aside land you could grow food on or develop on, to grow, of all things, marijuana. Any country that could afford to import it would do so. So, legalizing it creates jobs for the sales industry only (best-case scenario, they'd really probably just sell it alongside tobacco).


Look at Amsterdam, there they have a healthy system of taxation on their weed. People do not need to go to dealers because they can access good quality, well grown and non-tampered with product. Therefore, they won't. The worst comes to worst, people will grow their own, which to me is a lot better than going to a dealer who may spray the plant with sand or glass, causing harmful effects to the user.

Because the tobacco businesses don't put anything harmful in their cigarettes, do they? I mean, even if they did, marijuana would be way different, right? And, even though cigarette taxes are really high, there's no way that marijuana tax could be, too. Come on.


In general, yes there may be dealers who attempt to undercut cafes and weed bars, but as a whole dodgy dealing would be undoubtedly reduced. As to why people use it at home is that you don't need to be in new places or meet new people, it creates a fascination with everything, a sense of relaxedness and generally you don't need to move too much.

Dodgy business would be eliminated entirely, because anyone involved with marijuana would have nothing to fear from the law. But that's a very minor part of the problem (after all, apparently millions of people use marijuana, but very few get caught). And no, the reason people don't leave the house is because it's not a good idea to be out carousing the streets under the influence of an illicit substance. As I have already stated, that restraint would be removed upon the legalization of marijuana.


Your whole point about freedom and infringing on the rights of others is null and void. By having cannabis illegal, it creates a whole criminal scene that can involve gang shoot outs that can result in innocent bystanders dying. The criminal mindset can go hand in hand with the selling of the drug because people are always suspicious the police will be onto them.

I don't see how gang fights can possibly be construed as being a "right" anyone has. Not being forced to breathe in mind-altering smoke in public, however, seems very much a right to me.


Like I said, the main health concerns are with psychosis. Which, yes if someone is nuts they could be a danger to other people. However, with only 800 cases a year in Britain related to cannabis in comparison to the 2 million who smoke it, I think this is a relatively low risk. The whole argument about new strains of cannabis being stronger is nonsense. People nowadays are turning to "weed", or "skunk" as opposed to the much stronger "hash" or "resin". If people smoke in designated smoking areas as well, they are less likely to pollute people with second hand smoke. As for fear of being attacked by a stoner, I wouldn't worry too much. Whilst high, one is generally much more peaceful and gains a sense of laziness which would mean they wouldn't have the effort to attack.

I'm not going to respond to this exactly, because I haven't brought up any personal health impacts marijuana would have as an argument. Nor anything about being viciously attacked by stoners.


There are questions as to the lung problems with cannabis, but the smoke affects a different part of the lungs to regular cigarettes and scientists are finding evidence that this part is less likely to develop cancerous growth. In addition, there is evidence to suggest there are anti-cancer cells in cannabis:

Why does the smoke affect a different part of the lungs than other smokes? That makes no sense. And what your article below says is basically that marijuana smoke is anti-tumor by killing cells, or tampering with blood flow. Sounds real beneficial.


"A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk. The results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors.[85]

Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[86]

A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors.[87] Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[88] However, a contrasting 2000 study linked the smoking of cannabis to the growth of cancerous tumors through the impairment of anti-tumor defenses.[89]"

To this, I only say that I don't really care about health issues marijuana poses to the smoker, and that Wikipedia is not an acceptable debate source.


Also, read the post above me. The system is not without its flaws, but its damn better than having it illega.

No, it's not. Considering how few people get caught dealing marijuana already, I'd say that catching them after it's been legalized will only make it that much harder, even if it remains illegal to deal with them (and he only said cafe owners couldn't deal with dealers). Besides, he said it himself; it's a stupid system.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 4:43 AM
it would be harder catching who if legalized? i mean minors will still have a harder time getting it legal because theres less profit in risking selling to a minor.

like i said, its not flawless but its way better than keeping it illegal. waste of money. waste of jail space.

GrizzlyB
12th May 2008, 5:28 AM
it would be harder catching who if legalized? i mean minors will still have a harder time getting it legal because theres less profit in risking selling to a minor.

like i said, its not flawless but its way better than keeping it illegal. waste of money. waste of jail space.

It would be harder to catch drug dealers if marijuana was legalized (if it would even be illegal for them to sell it to legal consumers).

Where is money wasted by keeping marijuana illegal, exactly? And I hardly think a little extra jail space justifies its legalization.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 5:32 AM
It would be harder to catch drug dealers if marijuana was legalized (if it would even be illegal for them to sell it to legal consumers).wait a minute, what? catch drug dealers? if selling weed is legal to adults, who do we actually need to catch here? specify please.


Where is money wasted by keeping marijuana illegal, exactly? And I hardly think a little extra jail space justifies its legalization.http://www.wredlich.com/stop-wasting-money/2006/07/huge-waste-of-money-war-on-drugs.html

and yes, we are wasting jail space. whats the point of putting somebody in jail just for possessing a plant? cant we put REAL people in jail?

GrizzlyB
12th May 2008, 6:03 AM
wait a minute, what? catch drug dealers? if selling weed is legal to adults, who do we actually need to catch here? specify please.

It was referencing Holland, where it is illegal for drug dealers to sell to weed bars, apparently. And your qualm is sorta my qualm; we wouldn't have legal basis to prevent drug dealers from selling drugs, or simply would have to put a lot of effort into catching them, which would allow them to violate control laws and undercut retailers.


and yes, we are wasting jail space. whats the point of putting somebody in jail just for possessing a plant? cant we put REAL people in jail?

The point of putting somebody in jail for having a plant is that it's an illegal plant, as asinine as that may sound. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker. And, like I said, relatively speaking, it's hardly an issue.

And I couldn't care less what your boy Warren Redlich says. He casually dismisses explaining where $80 billion of reportedly $100 billion is spent, without even any sort of source or substantial explanation for the numbers he does give. And, in the two House elections he ran for, he finished with less than 30% of the vote both times (see here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NY/) and here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/NY/)). I wonder why.

Nidogod
12th May 2008, 6:08 AM
I was away over the weekend and this thread took off since then so where ever I was before I'll stop. I would, though, like to address this issue of prison space.

GhostAnime, can you (if you haven't already) post a source showing the amount of people imprisoned simply for weed possession/useage/ect? I know a hell of a lot of heavy potheads, and a good amount of them have been arrested. NONE, though, have ever actually been put in jail. When cops catch them smoking, they usually just break it up. If they are driving under the influence or even caught with it on their person while driving it offers nothing more than a hefty fine and at the very most house arrest. House arrest is also the big punishment for people selling weed (as long as it's weed). I know of 3 local dealers who have actually been put in jail. They all had been tracked for awhile, and were selling a hell of a lot more than pot (mostly cocaine and meth, one carried crack as well).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I know nothing of the legal aspects of this. All I'm saying is that I know multiple dealers over the age of 18 as well as people who smoke weed on an almost daily basis, I've been in contact with them over the course of maybe 30 to 40 arrests, and like I said, not a single one went to jail. At the absolute worst they got alot of community service and couldn't leave their houses for a few months. Even some of the kids who were arrested for possession multiple times didn't have to serve any time.

With that being said I'd like to know what the figures are on jailing. As far as my knowledge goes, only the heavy dealers that sell more than weed and have way too much power really get put away.

Hakajin
12th May 2008, 8:31 AM
I think it should be legalized for those who could use it for pain, like terminal cancer patients. Prescription drugs are often dangerous for those who don't need them, and this would be no different. I'm not sure how I feel about it being made legal for everyone, though. I'm not for legalizing any substance we don't have to for general consumption, but I do know that it's an extremely poplar drug, and it might be better if the government could regulate it. I'm torn on that issue.


I clearly said that more people would be drawn in to it, not everyone. Take alcohol away and I bet you'd find the rate of people falling into alcoholism would drop as well.

I'm sure someone has said this, but if not, it's been tried. They called it prohibition. What happened was that people started making their own alcohol, which was often more potent than the brands that had been sold before. There was a black market, and prohibition was eventually repealed.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 1:45 PM
It was referencing Holland, where it is illegal for drug dealers to sell to weed bars, apparently. And your qualm is sorta my qualm; we wouldn't have legal basis to prevent drug dealers from selling drugs, or simply would have to put a lot of effort into catching them, which would allow them to violate control laws and undercut retailers.uh, whatever. how is this a reason to illegalize it again?


The point of putting somebody in jail for having a plant is that it's an illegal plant, as asinine as that may sound. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker. And, like I said, relatively speaking, it's hardly an issue.okay, a person who has a plant is equivalent to a murderer, a bank robber, and a rapist. just whos right is the plant owner infringing upon besides life, money, and your genitals?


And I couldn't care less what your boy Warren Redlich says. He casually dismisses explaining where $80 billion of reportedly $100 billion is spent, without even any sort of source or substantial explanation for the numbers he does give. And, in the two House elections he ran for, he finished with less than 30% of the vote both times (see here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NY/) and here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/NY/)). I wonder why.none of this is relevant. the point is that we've wasted too much money to the point where i consider it an iraq war thats actually confirmed to be futile.

btw nidogod im more referring to drug dealers most likely, but here (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm) it is.

DanPMK
12th May 2008, 2:30 PM
Remember, Marijuana makes you LOW, not HIGH. You're generally more docile and sit on the couch and do nothing. Car accidents are more common because when you're LOW your reaction time is so low you can't drive correctly. Same reason why drunk driving is illegal.

So, I think it should be legalized, and given the same treatment as alcohol.

Crack (et al), however, is what makes you high, and shouldn't be legalized.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 3:06 PM
and why cant crack be legalized?

Nidogod
12th May 2008, 6:14 PM
btw nidogod im more referring to drug dealers most likely, but here it is.

Yeah, that article states 'drug offenses.' Chances are that they were either high end dealers or doing much more than smoking weed.


and why cant crack be legalized?

Is that a serious question? 0_0

Profesco
12th May 2008, 8:31 PM
So, I think it should be legalized, and given the same treatment as alcohol.

This is reminiscent of the position I claimed in my first post. If it was legalized, it should rather be treated with the same restrictions as cigarettes and the like. It should have a gigantic stigma attached to it, as well as gigantic taxes. And there ought to be dozens of services intended for helping people to stop using it.

That's what I'd do.

10Sunkernlimit! Ha!

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 9:18 PM
Is that a serious question? 0_0why yes it is.

Nidogod
13th May 2008, 12:06 AM
why yes it is.

err

- Unlike softer recreational drugs it gives human beings a euphoric feeling that is beyond what we can naturally feel by basically putting you on happiness overload. This eventually causes you to come down to the worst depression you can imagine. That depression can also cause paranoia, anxiety, and aggression. These lovely traits evolve into delirium and possible invisible insects crawling under the skin. Woot! After you experience this inhuman happiness, you can never be happy without crack again.

- It's 100% addictive.

- You're basically smoking a heart attack.

- Due to the highly addictive nature many mothers refuse to stop using it while pregnant leading to the ever popular crack babies.

- Have you ever seen a crack head?

Here's my story about one I knew. He had two kids, one 14 and one 18. He quit his job because it got in the way of crack. His brothers and sisters paid for all the food and the mortgage just for the sake of the kids. He was in and out of jail for various acts of small theft in order to buy his stuff. The 14 year old daughter moved out to her aunt's house because fellow crackheads were going in and out of the house all night long. Eventually he got high one night and burned his house down. The daughter is working two jobs, going to school, and living with her boyfriend. The brother had to drop out and get a full time job because he was 18 but not completely done with high school.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 12:11 AM
i still dont see how that would make the country any less worse when they all made the choice to do so. imprisoning people like this for simply doing it isnt the solution.

Nidogod
13th May 2008, 12:44 AM
So you feel that something that will cause a serious addiction to any and all who use it, destroy your psyche, and kill you relatively fast as well as endanger everyone around you in more ways than one should be made legal? There's not even a discussion. It's like saying a food company can put rat poison in their product since it's ultimately up to the consumer whether they want to eat it or not.

Shinin
13th May 2008, 1:10 AM
So you feel that something that will cause a serious addiction to any and all who use it, destroy your psyche, and kill you relatively fast as well as endanger everyone around you in more ways than one should be made legal? There's not even a discussion. It's like saying a food company can put rat poison in their product since it's ultimately up to the consumer whether they want to eat it or not.

Assuming we're still talking about pot here, you have no idea what you're talking about.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 1:13 AM
so we should imprison the people eating rat poison or promote ways to prevent it? you cause more harm making it illegal than the harm that comes from legalizing it.

Profesco
13th May 2008, 1:30 AM
so we should imprison the people eating rat poison or promote ways to prevent it? you cause more harm making it illegal than the harm that comes from legalizing it.

No. You make it illegal for the company to put rat poison in the product.

@Shinin&Heracross: Read everything before you insult someone. He's talking about crack.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 1:37 AM
the difference between crack and the rat poison example is that the rat poison is unknown and the crack is usually KNOWN to be taboo.

Profesco
13th May 2008, 1:52 AM
The company doesn't know rat poison is harmful?

Pinata Panda
13th May 2008, 1:54 AM
no...
Mostly becuase it just makes everyone stupid and addicted and ruins there lifes and i am proud to say i have never done drugs

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 2:00 AM
no, the consumer doesnt know that there was rat poison in their food.

first-time crack users KNOW crack is bad for them even before they start using it.

Heracross
13th May 2008, 2:00 AM
@Shinin&Heracross: Read everything before you insult someone. He's talking about crack.

Well that simply begs the question of why something unrelated is being debated here in the first place.


no...
Mostly becuase it just makes everyone stupid and addicted and ruins there lifes and i am proud to say i have never done drugs
http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm

Would you be willing to say that all those people are stupid?

Profesco
13th May 2008, 2:29 AM
@GhostAnime: No, he's talking about the legality of the substance. The company is actively using rat poison: the druggie is actively using crack.

Well, I'm not entirely lucid at the moment... I feel odd. I'm not sure if I'm up to worthwhile debating at the moment.

I wish Babylon was here. :(

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 2:36 AM
in that case, the consumer still knows.

my knowledge on "crack" is extremely limited however but i am still an advocate of all recreational drugs. i dont know a single country that makes crack legal and is also doing bad because of it.

GrizzlyB
13th May 2008, 2:56 AM
uh, whatever. how is this a reason to illegalize it again?

Do you remember any prior statements I've made, or do you just dump out your brain after each post? It's a reason to keep it illegal because legalizing it will give no benefits, because there's still gangs with drugs (which will happen regardless if marijuana's legalized or not), no taxes being collected, and no controls being exercised on marijuana.


okay, a person who has a plant is equivalent to a murderer, a bank robber, and a rapist. just whos right is the plant owner infringing upon besides life, money, and your genitals?

I never said anything about infringing rights. The point is, he's fully aware that possessing, growing, using, or dealing marijuana is illegal, yet does so anyway.


none of this is relevant. the point is that we've wasted too much money to the point where i consider it an iraq war thats actually confirmed to be futile.

It's relevant, because it debunks your source. Not only that, but you yourself debunked it with another source, which reported half as many imprisoned drug offenders (and gave no adverse spending numbers, either, I might add). Besides, the US has wasted so much money on so many things already, it hardly really matters.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 3:00 AM
Do you remember any prior statements I've made, or do you just dump out your brain after each post? It's a reason to keep it illegal because legalizing it will give no benefits, because there's still gangs with drugs (which will happen regardless if marijuana's legalized or not), no taxes being collected, and no controls being exercised on marijuana.its not that i dump my knowledge after your posts, its that the only reason it should be kept illegal is because of your last point and that hasnt even been proven yet. ive already told you why minors would get less if we legalize it because we make it better for dealers to make more money off of selling it to non-minors thus making them think twice about risking all that profit just to sell it to some little teenager.

and taxes CAN be collected. it doesnt matter if theyre sold underground for less price than retails. weed WILL be bought just like cigarettes if they were legal. youre just grasping for straws now.


I never said anything about infringing rights. The point is, he's fully aware that possessing, growing, using, or dealing marijuana is illegal, yet does so anyway.that isnt the point. the reason we should LEGALIZE it is because it isnt the same as those things. who cares if its illegal now? thats besides the point; we're talking about SHOULD it stay that way.


It's relevant, because it debunks your source. Not only that, but you yourself debunked it with another source, which reported half as many imprisoned drug offenders (and gave no adverse spending numbers, either, I might add). Besides, the US has wasted so much money on so many things already, it hardly really matters.1) my source isnt debunked because 250k inmates is quite a lot and a few billion is quite a lot.

2) the US spending money on other stuff is no excuse to keep wasting it.

Nidogod
13th May 2008, 3:01 AM
no, the consumer doesnt know that there was rat poison in their food.

They would know. My point was that crack shouldn't be made legal just because people know it is extremely harmful but it's their choice anyway just the same as rat poison in food shouldn't be made legal just because people know it is extremely harmful but it's their choice anyway.

Either way I don't want to stray too far off topic.

GrizzlyB
13th May 2008, 3:20 AM
its not that i dump my knowledge after your posts, its that the only reason it should be kept illegal is because of your last point and that hasnt even been proven yet. ive already told you why minors would get less if we legalize it and make it better for dealers to make more money off of selling it to non-minors thus making them think twice about risking all that profit just to sell it to some little teenager.

NONE of what we've been saying has been proven yet. And drug dealers already turn a tidy profit now, and they're obviously willing to take the omnipresent risk of being caught now, so the argument that they'd stop selling to minors due to that remaining illegal, yet still being safer (due to not automatically being a lawbreaker just by having any marijuana at all), seems rather moot.


and taxes CAN be collected. it doesnt matter if theyre sold underground for less price than retails. weed WILL be bought just like cigarettes if they were legal. youre just grasping for straws now.

Why would a drug dealer collect taxes to send off to the government, when that would tip off the fact that they're selling illegally and eliminate one of the reasons they can sell lower for? Where is tax money coming from?


that isnt the point. the reason we should LEGALIZE it is because it isnt the same as those things. who cares if its illegal now? thats besides the point; we're talking about SHOULD it stay that way.

We should legalize it because it's not the same as other things that are illegal? Then, applying that logic the other way, we should keep it illegal because it is not the same as other legal activities.


1) my source isnt debunked because 250k inmates is quite a little and a few billion is quite a lot.

Yes, it is. Your first source said that 500,000 people were in jail due to drug-related charges, accounting for $20 billion of a purported $100 billion spent annually on the "war on drugs". The second source you gave lowered the number of inmates to 250,000, which, according to the first source's author's math, would lower the number to $10 billion spent on drug inmates, leaving $90 billion dollars unaccounted for. Sounds pretty debunked to me.


2) the us spending money on other stuff is no excuse to keep wasting it.

No, but it's a reason to not get so worked up over it. There's all sorts of useless programs our government funds, and it would be much better to cut spending in any number of those than where you have suggested.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 3:36 AM
NONE of what we've been saying has been proven yet.well unless you refute my points, they are logical and thus will happen.


And drug dealers already turn a tidy profit now, and they're obviously willing to take the omnipresent risk of being caught now, so the argument that they'd stop selling to minors due to that remaining illegal, yet still being safer (due to not automatically being a lawbreaker just by having any marijuana at all), seems rather moot.how is it moot? you would be required to get a license to sell weed. common sense tells you that in order to keep selling weed, youd have to keep that license. if you lose that license, you sell no more weed, which is a bad thing. this lowers the rate of minors getting it because obviously weed sellers want to keep their profits and more often than not, wont risk anything. the chances will be as high as cigarette sellers selling to minors. simply saying that they will continue because they used to doesnt refute the point; the ones who used to sell it illegally arent the only ones selling it now.


Why would a drug dealer collect taxes to send off to the government, when that would tip off the fact that they're selling illegally and eliminate one of the reasons they can sell lower for? Where is tax money coming from?no, the government collects the tax; not the dealer. the government taxes them just like cigarettes which IS obviously doable because its happening at this moment with cigs.


We should legalize it because it's not the same as other things that are illegal? Then, applying that logic the other way, we should keep it illegal because it is not the same as other legal activities.it doesnt work the other way because whats legal are things not infringing on the rights of others.


Yes, it is. Your first source said that 500,000 people were in jail due to drug-related charges, accounting for $20 billion of a purported $100 billion spent annually on the "war on drugs". The second source you gave lowered the number of inmates to 250,000, which, according to the first source's author's math, would lower the number to $10 billion spent on drug inmates, leaving $90 billion dollars unaccounted for. Sounds pretty debunked to me.blah blah blah wrong estimates here and there. how many times do i have to repeat myself: we are STILL wasting space and we are STILL wasting money. that, by far, is not debunked in the slightest.


No, but it's a reason to not get so worked up over it. There's all sorts of useless programs our government funds, and it would be much better to cut spending in any number of those than where you have suggested.why would they be any better? and this is still no excuse to ignore this.

GrizzlyB
13th May 2008, 4:06 AM
well unless you refute my points, they are logical and thus will happen.

The same holds true to mine.


how is it moot? you would be required to get a license to sell weed. common sense tells you that in order to keep selling weed, youd have to keep that license. if you lose that license, you sell no more weed, which is a bad thing. this lowers the rate of minors getting it because obviously weed sellers want to keep their profits and more often than not, wont risk anything. the chances will be as high as cigarette sellers selling to minors. simply saying that they will continue because they used to doesnt refute the point; the ones who used to sell it illegally arent the only ones selling it now.

This is what I meant by dumping your head out. Someone who would deal drugs not through a legitimate retailing business would do so without a license. Therefore, they are going to be selling weed regardless. This increases the rate of minors having weed because they could buy from a dealer, who wouldn't care how old they are, or simply have an older accomplice buy from a store for them, such as they do with tobacco or alcohol now. Also, you say that drug dealers "wont risk anything" by selling a legal substance to minors, yet you also claim that people not only do this now, but do it in the droves (as indicated by your prison space and cost argument), despite the fact that it is illicit. Speaking from a logical perspective, your argument makes no sense.


no, the government collects the tax; not the dealer. the government taxes them just like cigarettes which IS obviously doable because its happening at this moment with cigs.

I can see it now: you go to buy an ounce or two of Mary Jane from your local dealer, and a man with a shaved head, crisp suit, and stylish sunglasses comes up behind you and says, "Hey, buddy, I'm going to need some taxes for that." Or, when you're filing your income tax return, there's a line for, "Taxable substances purchased without paying taxes," you write in the amount, and they simply don't return that portion of your tax money.


it doesnt work the other way because whats legal are things not infringing on the rights of others.

Gee, that definition isn't ambiguous at all. Then I suppose it's not illegal for me to set my own property on fire, now is it?


blah blah blah wrong estimates here and there. how many times do i have to repeat myself: we are STILL wasting space and we are STILL wasting money. that, by far, is not debunked in the slightest.


How about the money that will be wasted on additional health care and rehabilitation programs after we legalize marijuana, not to mention lost revenue from fines, and not lowering drug enforcement costs, due to other drugs still being illegal and present, not to mention to be able to catch minors with marijuana.


why would they be any better? and this is still no excuse to ignore this.

Then, instead of wasting our time with this, we should be worrying about social security, which costs much more money annually and is an utterly failed program.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 5:46 AM
This is what I meant by dumping your head out. Someone who would deal drugs not through a legitimate retailing business would do so without a license. Therefore, they are going to be selling weed regardless. This increases the rate of minors having weed because they could buy from a dealer, who wouldn't care how old they are, or simply have an older accomplice buy from a store for them, such as they do with tobacco or alcohol nowyou say it would increase but why? its easier for them to sell to minors at this moment because all they care about is a profit by any means. make it legal and the people who profit the most are the ones who obey the rules. thus, the only ones possibly left who could sell it to minors are people who arent licensed (not many because youd WANT to be licensed to make more money) or people who want to RISK their licenses (about the same rate as any other drug).


Also, you say that drug dealers "wont risk anything" by selling a legal substance to minors, yet you also claim that people not only do this now, but do it in the droves (as indicated by your prison space and cost argument), despite the fact that it is illicit. Speaking from a logical perspective, your argument makes no sense.it does make sense. im saying that it will happen LESS if made legal because there will be no specific huge market to selling to minors.


I can see it now: you go to buy an ounce or two of Mary Jane from your local dealer, and a man with a shaved head, crisp suit, and stylish sunglasses comes up behind you and says, "Hey, buddy, I'm going to need some taxes for that." Or, when you're filing your income tax return, there's a line for, "Taxable substances purchased without paying taxes," you write in the amount, and they simply don't return that portion of your tax money.no idea what youre stating here but this doesnt sound like drug exclusive. sounds like just about any occupation could do what youre explaining to me. want to make those occupations illegal because of it? i bet not.


Gee, that definition isn't ambiguous at all. Then I suppose it's not illegal for me to set my own property on fire, now is it?well, if you want to. we're required to try and put the fire out but i dont think we should put you in jail just for a dumb decision like that.


How about the money that will be wasted on additional health care and rehabilitation programs after we legalize marijuana, not to mention lost revenue from fines, and not lowering drug enforcement costs, due to other drugs still being illegal and present, not to mention to be able to catch minors with marijuana.all this could be paid by just having cigs and alcohol legal; i dont see why it cant be paid by making other recreational drugs legal from their taxes.


Then, instead of wasting our time with this, we should be worrying about social security, which costs much more money annually and is an utterly failed program.you can bring up a more important issue but the issue at hand is drugs.

GrizzlyB
13th May 2008, 6:45 AM
you say it would increase but why? its easier for them to sell to minors at this moment because all they care about is a profit by any means. make it legal and the people who profit the most are the ones who obey the rules. thus, the only ones possibly left who could sell it to minors are people who arent licensed (not many because youd WANT to be licensed to make more money) or people who want to RISK their licenses (about the same rate as any other drug).

It would be increased because controlled substances always leech down into lower age demographics than the legal limit is. For instance, a sophomore in high school probably knows at least a senior or two who would buy him cigarettes if he asked. College freshmen never want for alcohol, either, because there'll always be someone over 21 around who is only too happy to oblige. And, in markets, those who don't follow the rules are always the winners. Countries that don't follow international trade policies are the ones who prosper, corporations that don't follow regulative policies are the ones who make the big bucks, and, when it comes down to individual businesses, it's more of the same. This beside, licenses for any sort of business are generally difficult to get, and very much so if they are for peddling controlled substances.


it does make sense. im saying that it will happen LESS if made legal because there will be no specific huge market to selling to minors.

You defy all laws of economics. There would be an exclusive market for selling to minors, because they would not be able to purchase marijuana from legitimate businesses. Any time you get a market exclusively means big bucks.


no idea what youre stating here but this doesnt sound like drug exclusive. sounds like just about any occupation could do what youre explaining to me. want to make those occupations illegal because of it? i bet not.

I was stating a ridiculous hypothetical for if government collected taxes itself. The closest it comes is people sending taxes to the government, which a drug dealer would not do, because the government would not know that they are selling things, as they are not licensed to do so.


well, if you want to. we're required to try and put the fire out but i dont think we should put you in jail just for a dumb decision like that.

How about when the fire gets out of my control and burns down my neighbor's house. What then?


all this could be paid by just having cigs and alcohol legal; i dont see why it cant be paid by making other recreational drugs legal from their taxes.

There will always be illegal things in the world. And, so long as they exist, governments have to pay money to attempt to contain them. Besides, they are illegal in the first place due to the fact that they are dangerous. When that danger is integrated into society, even more money must be paid to contain or reverse it.


you can bring up a more important issue but the issue at hand is drugs.

Well, this particular tangent is about wasteful spending, of which social security does much more severely than drug-related programs.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 6:55 AM
And, in markets, those who don't follow the rules are always the winners. Countries that don't follow international trade policies are the ones who prosper, corporations that don't follow regulative policies are the ones who make the big bucks, and, when it comes down to individual businesses, it's more of the same. This beside, licenses for any sort of business are generally difficult to get, and very much so if they are for peddling controlled substances.i agree with you here to an extent but like i said, to prevent it from happening 100% with weed is practically impossible along with cigarettes and other things that have age restrictions; but the black market to minors would DECREASE because the profit is less there than the legal market. i want you to prove that the black market for minors will somehow make more money than the legal market.


You defy all laws of economics. There would be an exclusive market for selling to minors, because they would not be able to purchase marijuana from legitimate businesses. Any time you get a market exclusively means big bucks.so now youre saying minors will buy more weed than the adults? well, i want more reasoning than just the assertion. this has nothing to do with laws but rather simple logic: why would the market be more active in minors than legal substances? why isnt it with cigarettes and alcohol?


I was stating a ridiculous hypothetical for if government collected taxes itself. The closest it comes is people sending taxes to the government, which a drug dealer would not do, because the government would not know that they are selling things, as they are not licensed to do so.and im referring to LICENSED weed sellers which there will be more of. if you are LICENSED, you are required.


How about when the fire gets out of my control and burns down my neighbor's house. What then?which is why we are required to put it out. they are allowed to sue you, though, but we dont arrest you most likely.


There will always be illegal things in the world. And, so long as they exist, governments have to pay money to attempt to contain them. Besides, they are illegal in the first place due to the fact that they are dangerous. When that danger is integrated into society, even more money must be paid to contain or reverse it.it is very clear that you dont even understand why they were illegal in the first place. havent we had this discussion before? theyre illegal because of racism, yellow journalism, and corrupt politicians. i have a link somewhere earlier in this thread that supports that.

GrizzlyB
13th May 2008, 7:27 AM
i agree with you here to an extent but like i said, to prevent it from happening 100% with weed is practically impossible along with cigarettes and other things that have age restrictions; but the black market to minors would DECREASE because the profit is less there than the legal market. i want you to prove that the black market for minors will somehow make more money than the legal market.

Well, at least we can agree on some part. But I still don't understand why the black market would decrease in regards to minors. You can at least agree that if marijuana was legalized, it would become much more commonplace, right? So, while today, it is not very safe at all to have weed, if it were to be legalized, it would be completely safe for adults, and at least somewhat safer for kids, increasing usage. And, since minors can't actually buy not from the black market, there's more money in the black market than the legal market from minors right there, even if it's only one purchase.


so now youre saying minors will buy more weed than the adults? well, i want more reasoning than just the assertion. this has nothing to do with laws but rather simple logic: why would the market be more active in minors than legal substances? why isnt it with cigarettes and alcohol?

I'm... not really sure what you're saying precisely. But, I will elaborate more on my point by saying that since the black market can provide a specific service (selling marijuana) to a specific group (minors), it will exist, which is one of the basic laws of economics. And furthermore, since the black market is there anyway, and can offer the same service at a cheaper price (without having to charge taxes), it will draw business from all other groups, too.


and im referring to LICENSED weed sellers which there will be more of. if you are LICENSED, you are required.

And I am, and have been, only referring to drug dealers not collecting taxes. I also purport that they will draw a lot of business, none of which will generate any tax revenue, rendering the pro-legalization argument of more tax money less effective, at best.


which is why we are required to put it out. they are allowed to sue you, though, but we dont arrest you most likely.

So, you do agree that preventative action must be taken before it can affect others. It's the same thing with having a marijuana plant. If it stays under wraps, there's nothing substantial to worry about (how often have people been busted for having a private plant?), like if your couch caught fire, or something. But these sorts of things hardly stay small. Soon, either your house is up in flames, or shady characters are coming and going at all hours of the night, making transactions. And, these are certainly bound to spread out into the domain of others, infringing on their rights. That is why people will go to jail for having a plant (and if you light your house on fire, it's still arson).


it is very clear that you dont even understand why they were illegal in the first place. havent we had this discussion before? theyre illegal because of racism, yellow journalism, and corrupt politicians. i have a link somewhere earlier in this thread that supports that.

Yes, I must have missed that part. I can't possibly conceive how racism or political agendas could be responsible for drugs being illegal.

Kosmo
13th May 2008, 7:33 AM
This is going to be short since I didn't bother reading any of your posts.

Yeah, drugs are harmful, BUT SO WHAT?? If someone wants to drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, or even snort cocaine, then let them. It's none of your goddamn business.


BUT THINK OF THE CHILDRENZ! OH NOES!

Worry about your own goddamn children. Screw other people's children.

If a mongoloid wants to take drugs, then let 'em. God Bless Freedom.

TrueCharizard
13th May 2008, 8:46 AM
No, I said people were safer now, with marijuana illegal, because if they were being casual/unsafe about it, they would get caught with an illicit substance. If weed was legalized, they would not care about being caught, and therefore not drive as cautiously under its influence. How many times must I reiterate this?



Because now, of all times, is not the time to be setting aside land you could grow food on or develop on, to grow, of all things, marijuana. Any country that could afford to import it would do so. So, legalizing it creates jobs for the sales industry only (best-case scenario, they'd really probably just sell it alongside tobacco).



Because the tobacco businesses don't put anything harmful in their cigarettes, do they? I mean, even if they did, marijuana would be way different, right? And, even though cigarette taxes are really high, there's no way that marijuana tax could be, too. Come on.



Dodgy business would be eliminated entirely, because anyone involved with marijuana would have nothing to fear from the law. But that's a very minor part of the problem (after all, apparently millions of people use marijuana, but very few get caught). And no, the reason people don't leave the house is because it's not a good idea to be out carousing the streets under the influence of an illicit substance. As I have already stated, that restraint would be removed upon the legalization of marijuana.



I don't see how gang fights can possibly be construed as being a "right" anyone has. Not being forced to breathe in mind-altering smoke in public, however, seems very much a right to me.

Why does the smoke affect a different part of the lungs than other smokes? That makes no sense. And what your article below says is basically that marijuana smoke is anti-tumor by killing cells, or tampering with blood flow. Sounds real beneficial.

To this, I only say that I don't really care about health issues marijuana poses to the smoker, and that Wikipedia is not an acceptable debate source.





People drive cautiously because they are relaxed. I've known many people who are more dangerous as sober drivers because they get frustrated and angry with the road, they want to rush everywhere. Now I'm not supporting drug driving, but its not as dangerous as you'd believe.

People would also want to grow weed because its arguably a productive way to spend their time. Sales + shipping. If they taxed it, they'd have reasonable taxes on it. There would be no way a government would tax the product at such an extent that the dealers do because they don't have to deal with getting caught/legal problems. If taxed, it can be regulated. Yes tobacco companies put bad chemicals in tobacco, but tobacco and cannabis are not the same. In comparison, the two plants are very different. One expects bad things from tobacco, whereas weed could do with a lot more investigation before we know about all its health benefits and disadvantages. At the moment, it seems a lot less harmful.

In regards to jobs being created, there are currently quotas put on European farmers so that they cannot produce or sell over a certain amount of product. There are fields upon fields of grain being wasted by quotas.

Well if you want to argue that so few people get caught dealing anyway, why bother spending money and resources trying to police something that cannot and shouldn't be policed. Especially when money can be gained from its sale which could be put into other things.

Your whole freedom to not breathe in the smoke argument isn't valid as in a state with legalized cannabis, there would be designated smoking areas - a cannabis bar or the home. Take a look at Amsterdam. I'd feel far safer there than your average American or British city.

This black market for minors thing is irrelevant. If kids felt the need to get weed and it were legal, they'd probably ask the tramp at the corner of the street to go in and get some, like they do with alcohol, cigarettes, whatever. You are removing the criminal elements of cannabis by about 80%

The guy above me just wins the thread.

GrizzlyB
13th May 2008, 9:21 AM
People drive cautiously because they are relaxed. I've known many people who are more dangerous as sober drivers because they get frustrated and angry with the road, they want to rush everywhere. Now I'm not supporting drug driving, but its not as dangerous as you'd believe.

Cautious and relaxed are very much antonyms. And if they get frustrated and angry over driving, they probably really shouldn't be doing it in the first place.


People would also want to grow weed because its arguably a productive way to spend their time. Sales + shipping. If they taxed it, they'd have reasonable taxes on it. There would be no way a government would tax the product at such an extent that the dealers do because they don't have to deal with getting caught/legal problems. If taxed, it can be regulated. Yes tobacco companies put bad chemicals in tobacco, but tobacco and cannabis are not the same. In comparison, the two plants are very different. One expects bad things from tobacco, whereas weed could do with a lot more investigation before we know about all its health benefits and disadvantages. At the moment, it seems a lot less harmful.

Your argument's basically a jumble. First off, the government taxes things. Not farmers, not drug dealers. They make no money off taxes, even if, for some reason, they did collect them. Second off, tobacco by itself is not very much different from marijuana. One of the most popular arguments for marijuana legalization is that it is not addictive. Well, neither is tobacco, until industries add addictive ingredients. And saying that taxing something allows for regulation is like saying that a landlord can control his tenant, roughly.


In regards to jobs being created, there are currently quotas put on European farmers so that they cannot produce or sell over a certain amount of product. There are fields upon fields of grain being wasted by quotas.

Yes, this has been going on for years. Did you know that these quotas help farmers by keeping their profits up, not to mention the fact that they get paid for following quotas? And that it keeps market prices afloat, as to avoid a crash? You're acting like it's a bad thing.


Well if you want to argue that so few people get caught dealing anyway, why bother spending money and resources trying to police something that cannot and shouldn't be policed. Especially when money can be gained from its sale which could be put into other things.

You just said that a hypothetical plus to marijuana legalization is to create more jobs, and yet, here you are, advocating cutting off government spending that provides jobs for thousands of police officers who would be out of work.


Your whole freedom to not breathe in the smoke argument isn't valid as in a state with legalized cannabis, there would be designated smoking areas - a cannabis bar or the home. Take a look at Amsterdam. I'd feel far safer there than your average American or British city.

Yeah, well, you can't smoke tobacco in public places where I live, but that doesn't stop me from breathing smoke on a regular basis when I go out.


This black market for minors thing is irrelevant. If kids felt the need to get weed and it were legal, they'd probably ask the tramp at the corner of the street to go in and get some, like they do with alcohol, cigarettes, whatever. You are removing the criminal elements of cannabis by about 80%

Except that a black market currently exists for marijuana, which is not the case for cigarettes or alcohol. It would continue, at the very least for awhile after legalization. I'm sure kids would go straight to a dealer for alcohol or tobacco if there were such people, but there aren't.


The guy above me just wins the thread.

If the world operated in an anarchical sort of way, then yes, I suppose.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 12:10 PM
You can at least agree that if marijuana was legalized, it would become much more commonplace, right? So, while today, it is not very safe at all to have weed, if it were to be legalized, it would be completely safe for adults, and at least somewhat safer for kids, increasing usage. And, since minors can't actually buy not from the black market, there's more money in the black market than the legal market from minors right there, even if it's only one purchase.what are you talking about? theres more money in selling it to minors than adults? this is not what im asking for: im asking for proof that minors use drugs more than adults. proving that would prove that there is more money selling it to minors thus encouraging legal sellers to do what you are suggesting. either show the source/math or retract the claim.

your next paragraph says that they could attempt to sell it to both, but i never said nobody would; i said that this kind of thing would decrease because not everybody is going to want to risk their licenses.


And I am, and have been, only referring to drug dealers not collecting taxes. I also purport that they will draw a lot of business, none of which will generate any tax revenue, rendering the pro-legalization argument of more tax money less effective, at best.no you havent. you just stated that the majority will somehow not pay weed taxes. asserting it does not make you right. you point to some theory with no logical backing or evidence, i point to things like cigarettes and alcohol taxes contributing to the economy.


So, you do agree that preventative action must be taken before it can affect others. It's the same thing with having a marijuana plant. If it stays under wraps, there's nothing substantial to worry about (how often have people been busted for having a private plant?), like if your couch caught fire, or something. But these sorts of things hardly stay small. Soon, either your house is up in flames, or shady characters are coming and going at all hours of the night, making transactions. And, these are certainly bound to spread out into the domain of others, infringing on their rights. That is why people will go to jail for having a plant (and if you light your house on fire, it's still arson).you didnt specify the right. you just said selling and using weed infringes on somebody's rights. well, what right is it?


Yes, I must have missed that part. I can't possibly conceive how racism or political agendas could be responsible for drugs being illegal.me neither grizzly, me neither. (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html)

Kiyohime
13th May 2008, 12:26 PM
My two cents: No matter whether pot is legal or not, people are still going to smoke it. I live in California, and pot is ridiculously easily to get here, and top notch quality as well.

I smoked a gram of pot last night with friends and yes, I enjoyed myself. It has its advantages--it works well medically, and you don't end up sleeping with the ugly fat girl you meet at the bar. Alcohol does that. But I don't need to smoke pot to have fun. It's just a better alternative to the more dangerous drugs such as heroin, which I don't condone.

TrueCharizard
13th May 2008, 12:49 PM
Cautious and relaxed are very much antonyms. And if they get frustrated and angry over driving, they probably really shouldn't be doing it in the first place.



Your argument's basically a jumble. First off, the government taxes things. Not farmers, not drug dealers. They make no money off taxes, even if, for some reason, they did collect them. Second off, tobacco by itself is not very much different from marijuana. One of the most popular arguments for marijuana legalization is that it is not addictive. Well, neither is tobacco, until industries add addictive ingredients. And saying that taxing something allows for regulation is like saying that a landlord can control his tenant, roughly.




You just said that a hypothetical plus to marijuana legalization is to create more jobs, and yet, here you are, advocating cutting off government spending that provides jobs for thousands of police officers who would be out of work.



Yeah, well, you can't smoke tobacco in public places where I live, but that doesn't stop me from breathing smoke on a regular basis when I go out.



Except that a black market currently exists for marijuana, which is not the case for cigarettes or alcohol. It would continue, at the very least for awhile after legalization. I'm sure kids would go straight to a dealer for alcohol or tobacco if there were such people, but there aren't.

Yes, you are right, a black market does exist. Which is what legalization and regulation would seek to deal with. People who want to smoke weed for the high will smoke it anyway. Those who smoke it for the criminal mystique (kids, mostly) will no longer have a reason to smoke it.

Some people argue cannabis is a "gateway drug" whilst this is often proven to be false, I will give you a reason why it is. By having it illegal, people eventually discover it and go "hold on, this isn't as bad as I was led to believe, what else isn't as bad".

The reason why I pointed out the quotas thing is because there are fields of food being wasted. Whilst I could suggest we actually do something with the mountains of corn and butter (give it to the third world for next to nothing), I am pointing out the field could be used to sell weed. In turn, the farmers sell it to companies who distribute it to cannabis cafes. It is taxed on each of these moves. The government collects the tax and founds a governmental department to regulating things.

Trust me, even if the government didn't regulate it after taxing it, cannabis from cafes would be a lot healthier than the stuff you find on the street. If you want to invest in a lab to look at the strains of weed in Amsterdam, I guarantee you, there will be nothing put in the majority of them that would make the drug physically addictive. Whilst use can become habitual, this can be avoided with education.

If you don't think cannabis has any use, go and take every good LP, CD and tape you own and burn them. If you ever need any sort of genetic therapy based medicine, refuse it.

$Cash$
13th May 2008, 1:43 PM
20 most dangerous drugs according to British study:

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

And how much would marijuana cause ? A hell of a lot less for sure

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 2:06 PM
its either that or have filled prisons.

Clash
13th May 2008, 2:06 PM
I don't see why making an illegal drug legal is going to do. People who want to smoke it already have, and people who don't, still won't.

chuboy
13th May 2008, 2:22 PM
Legalising the drug makes safe preparations of it available. Rather than heroin addicts getting AIDS from sharing needles or the like, if they can pay a more reasonable price for a safe dose of a drug, it actually minimizes the harm, as well as destroying the drug-dealing in a region.

$Cash$
13th May 2008, 2:53 PM
And some dealers spray their weed with windex and other stuff that wouldn't happen if it became legal

Heracross
13th May 2008, 8:28 PM
And some dealers spray their weed with windex and other stuff that wouldn't happen if it became legal

I really don't know about this. It wouldn't be sprayed with windex of course, but seeing how the tobacco companies actually add extra chemicals to make their product more addicting (which the government is perfectly fine with, lol hypocrisy), I don't see what would keep them from doing the same thing with marijuana.

TrueCharizard
13th May 2008, 10:56 PM
I really don't know about this. It wouldn't be sprayed with windex of course, but seeing how the tobacco companies actually add extra chemicals to make their product more addicting (which the government is perfectly fine with, lol hipocrisy), I don't see what would keep them from doing the same thing with marijuana.

Like I said, I doubt this happens in Amsterdam.

Ack well, I'm kind of done with this debate. The only opposition I can think of is the fear of people inhaling the fumes second hand. Its really not a valid argument, I -wish- I could get stoned from just sniffing a lit joint. Its really not as easy as that. That and the psychosis which would be a lot easier to sort out with more money in hospitals, provided by.. TAXES!

Nidogod
13th May 2008, 11:01 PM
And some dealers spray their weed with windex and other stuff that wouldn't happen if it became legal

Or lace it, which can end just as bad for you.

cradle_of_filth_rock
14th May 2008, 12:13 AM
meh why not

smoking marijuana can help people get a great voice at least thats the theory anyway (just look at chris barnes)

GrizzlyB
14th May 2008, 1:27 AM
what are you talking about? theres more money in selling it to minors than adults? this is not what im asking for: im asking for proof that minors use drugs more than adults. proving that would prove that there is more money selling it to minors thus encouraging legal sellers to do what you are suggesting. either show the source/math or retract the claim.

I never said that minors use more drugs than adults. What I'm saying is that kids do want drugs, and they would not be able to get them legally. They can buy them from the black market, but not a legal business. Therefore, the black market gets 100% of the business from minors, while the legal retailers get 0%.

You're asking me to back up things I have never said.


your next paragraph says that they could attempt to sell it to both, but i never said nobody would; i said that this kind of thing would decrease because not everybody is going to want to risk their licenses.

Anyone who has a license doesn't risk losing it if they don't sell to minors. But drug dealers aren't going to go out and get licenses, so they're not risking losing them.


no you havent. you just stated that the majority will somehow not pay weed taxes. asserting it does not make you right. you point to some theory with no logical backing or evidence, i point to things like cigarettes and alcohol taxes contributing to the economy.

Okay, let's say I go down the block to my local drug dealer, and buy twenty dollars worth of marijuana from him. It's twenty dollars worth of marijuana, I have just given him twenty dollars, and he has just made a twenty dollar sale. Where is any tax collected in this typical drug dealer transaction?


you didnt specify the right. you just said selling and using weed infringes on somebody's rights. well, what right is it?

Say I live in an apartment complex. Say one of my neighbors grows and uses marijuana in his apartment, and I can smell the smoke in my apartment, not to mention the disturbances I hear at all hours of the night from his acquaintances popping by for a smoke. Does that not infringe my right to be undisturbed in my own home?

Also, I would be tempted to believe a source you provide that is not absolutely dripping in bias. There probably aren't any that suit your purposes, though.


Yes, you are right, a black market does exist. Which is what legalization and regulation would seek to deal with. People who want to smoke weed for the high will smoke it anyway. Those who smoke it for the criminal mystique (kids, mostly) will no longer have a reason to smoke it.

Why could legalization and regulation deal with something more effectively than criminalization and regulation? If kids are simply smoking pot for the criminally-induced rush, what's to stop them from moving on to something more dangerous that's still illegal. And, besides, tobacco and alcohol are in the state a proposed legalization would place marijuana, and kids mainly do those for the "criminal mystique," probably because they are so easy to get.


Some people argue cannabis is a "gateway drug" whilst this is often proven to be false, I will give you a reason why it is. By having it illegal, people eventually discover it and go "hold on, this isn't as bad as I was led to believe, what else isn't as bad".

Tobacco and alcohol are very much more gateway drugs than marijuana, yet they're legal. Your argument falls apart.


The reason why I pointed out the quotas thing is because there are fields of food being wasted. Whilst I could suggest we actually do something with the mountains of corn and butter (give it to the third world for next to nothing), I am pointing out the field could be used to sell weed. In turn, the farmers sell it to companies who distribute it to cannabis cafes. It is taxed on each of these moves. The government collects the tax and founds a governmental department to regulating things.

Not only do governments pay farmers to follow quotas, but no intelligent farmer will be constantly using all of his land, especially if he's growing corn. So, the reasoning for laying crops out in piles is to fulfill quotas, and empty fields are a result both quotas and letting the fields accumulate essential nutrients over the period that they are not used so that the land remains arable (which is another reason for quotas, so that all fields are not used up in cycles, which would result in food shortages). So, basically, if a farmer's field is empty, there's probably reasons they aren't growing anything.


Trust me, even if the government didn't regulate it after taxing it, cannabis from cafes would be a lot healthier than the stuff you find on the street. If you want to invest in a lab to look at the strains of weed in Amsterdam, I guarantee you, there will be nothing put in the majority of them that would make the drug physically addictive. Whilst use can become habitual, this can be avoided with education.

Well, like you said yourself, it can become addictive (rather easily, actually) even if it has no properties to indicate it. And, like I said earlier, and others have been saying now, legalization would make companies jump on the opportunity to sell marijuana (as it would become an unfilled niche in the market), and they, just like the tobacco companies (if they weren't the same, which is a distinct possibility), would add addictive ingredients to the products they sell. Which adds even more credibility to my main argument, as people would probably rather buy from a dealer who doesn't add chemicals for certain than a company that wants to coerce you to buy their product via any means.


If you don't think cannabis has any use, go and take every good LP, CD and tape you own and burn them. If you ever need any sort of genetic therapy based medicine, refuse it.

Could you elaborate on this further or put it in context, please? By itself, it really doesn't make any sense.

GhostAnime
14th May 2008, 1:34 AM
I never said that minors use more drugs than adults. What I'm saying is that kids do want drugs, and they would not be able to get them legally. They can buy them from the black market, but not a legal business. Therefore, the black market gets 100% of the business from minors, while the legal retailers get 0%.wheres the part where minor usage increase?


Anyone who has a license doesn't risk losing it if they don't sell to minors. But drug dealers aren't going to go out and get licenses, so they're not risking losing them.and why wouldnt they? why dont they want to sell it legally and earn a much bigger profit without the cost of anything at all? sounds like a good deal to me.


Okay, let's say I go down the block to my local drug dealer, and buy twenty dollars worth of marijuana from him. It's twenty dollars worth of marijuana, I have just given him twenty dollars, and he has just made a twenty dollar sale. Where is any tax collected in this typical drug dealer transaction?if im not mistaken, isnt drug tax included in it before it even gets to the store or in your hands?

but im talking about buying weed from a store; not a non-licensed party.


Say I live in an apartment complex. Say one of my neighbors grows and uses marijuana in his apartment, and I can smell the smoke in my apartment, not to mention the disturbances I hear at all hours of the night from his acquaintances popping by for a smoke. Does that not infringe my right to be undisturbed in my own home?are you serious? you think this is a reason to make it illegal? lets make loud music illegal while we're at it.


Also, I would be tempted to believe a source you provide that is not absolutely dripping in bias. There probably aren't any that suit your purposes, though.that source was not biased at all. if youre so curious about why it was banned in the first place, research it yourself. dont cry when you come back with the same answer.

GrizzlyB
14th May 2008, 2:05 AM
wheres the part where minor usage increase?

It's synonymous with the part where overall marijuana usage increases dramatically. Surely, you aren't denying that?


and why wouldnt they? why dont they want to sell it legally and earn a much bigger profit without the cost of anything at all? sounds like a good deal to me.

They wouldn't get a license because licenses for selling anything are only issued to businesses, or somebody with a business plan and the backing to open one up, not to mention that they cost money to get. It's not like a driving or hunting license. A drug dealer is not a business, and therefore, couldn't get a license as-is even if he wanted to.


if im not mistaken, isnt drug tax included in it before it even gets to the store or in your hands?

Nope, it's added to the price a business collects during a transaction, and therefore comes straight from the consumer.


but im talking about buying weed from a store; not a non-licensed party.

One of my focal points is that people will go to drug dealers to avoid paying the taxes on marijuana. Obviously, a store will collect and pay taxes; a drug dealer will not.


are you serious? you think this is a reason to make it illegal? lets make loud music illegal while we're at it.

If someone's music is disturbing you in your home, then you can call the police about it. Marijuana, gun shots, anything, would all be the same.


that source was not biased at all. if youre so curious about why it was banned in the first place, research it yourself. dont cry when you come back with the same answer.

Unbiased? Really? This is your idea of an unbiased author?

Pete Guither is a drug policy reform expert and an unapologetic advocate of ending prohibition as it exists today.
And I have been trying to find unbiased sources on the topic, but approximately the first thousand or so (maybe a slight exaggeration) results for any search query I try, at the least, allude to 'Legalize Marijuana!'

Profesco
14th May 2008, 2:08 AM
are you serious? you think this is a reason to make it illegal? lets make loud music illegal while we're at it.

GhostAnime, you do know that if someone calls the police on a person playing loud music at unreasonable hours, cops visit the premise and tell the person to turn it down, and if they don't they get into some kind of trouble, right?

GhostAnime
14th May 2008, 2:55 AM
It's synonymous with the part where overall marijuana usage increases dramatically. Surely, you aren't denying that?usage increases. show your reasoning for MINOR USE increasing.


They wouldn't get a license because licenses for selling anything are only issued to businesses, or somebody with a business plan and the backing to open one up, not to mention that they cost money to get. It's not like a driving or hunting license. A drug dealer is not a business, and therefore, couldn't get a license as-is even if he wanted to.no, a license is for people who want to sell ANY kind of marijuana legally. they would be stupid and literally hate money to not get a license. most of the people will thrive to the stores.


One of my focal points is that people will go to drug dealers to avoid paying the taxes on marijuana. Obviously, a store will collect and pay taxes; a drug dealer will not.yet people buy cigarettes from stores and not 'cigarette dealers'.


If someone's music is disturbing you in your home, then you can call the police about it. Marijuana, gun shots, anything, would all be the same.okay, then you agree with they should all be kept legal if done right and not abused.


Unbiased? Really? This is your idea of an unbiased author?

And I have been trying to find unbiased sources on the topic, but approximately the first thousand or so (maybe a slight exaggeration) results for any search query I try, at the least, allude to 'Legalize Marijuana!'perhaps its because it was actually illegalized for a dumb reason. it was all fine and dandy before it was illegalized ya know.

profesco, dont tell me that point flew over your head. the point of that message was to say that misuse of rights does not mean we should make the right illegal.

GrizzlyB
14th May 2008, 3:34 AM
usage increases. show your reasoning for MINOR USE increasing.

Are you serious? If something was previously illegal and used, and made legal, anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you that its use will only go up in any given demographic.


no, a license is for people who want to sell ANY kind of marijuana legally. they would be stupid and literally hate money to not get a license. most of the people will thrive to the stores.

You have incredibly minimalistic knowledge of how our market operates, don't you? A license something that says that the business in possession of it has permission of the government to be selling whatever it is that they are selling, be it food, souvenirs, gas, or anything. I can't just ring up an agency and say, "Yes, I'd like to sell tobacco, how much for a license."


yet people buy cigarettes from stores and not 'cigarette dealers'.

That's because there is no cigarette black market, and there never was, which is not the case with marijuana.


okay, then you agree with they should all be kept legal if done right and not abused.

That's a VERY big if. In fact, it is so big, that it's really not even worth the risk.


perhaps its because it was actually illegalized for a dumb reason. it was all fine and dandy before it was illegalized ya know.

Okay, if the reason actually is dumb, you don't summarize why it is with each of the points that you believe indicate that, nor do you ever say it outright. If the reason is dumb, you simply have to explain all factors in their entirety, and the case makes itself. Not to mention, back then, it was considered fine and dandy to send your children off to the factory every day and use mustard gas, while it was absolutely vulgar and profane for a woman to show her ankles. Point being; times change.

Hakajin
14th May 2008, 7:51 AM
20 most dangerous drugs according to British study:

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

And how much would marijuana cause ? A hell of a lot less for sure

I'd like to hear an explanation of that list. How is cannabis more dangerous than ecstasy, steroids, and LSD? Anyway, I think that when making a drug legal or illegal, there are three main questions:

1. Can the government keep this drug from proliferating by making it illegal?
Sometimes the government simply can't keep people from using a drug. Like alcohol. Prohibition didn't work because alcohol became a black market and was actually more dangerous than when it was legal. This is the most important question, I think, because if the drug is used despite being illegal, it's safer if the government is able to regulate who can use it and when. It becomes not a question of right and wrong, but a question of which path will cause the least harm.

2. Does this drug make the user dangerous to others?
If it can be regulated, the next question is how the drug will affect others. It may be the drug-user's right to choose if she wants to harm herself, but that doesn't give her the right to harm others.

3. Do the side-effects of the drug outweigh the benefits for the user?
Finally, if you can prevent people from taking it and it doesn't hurt others, it's important to know if the drug will hurt the user. If the answer to both of those questions is yes, it probably shouldn't be made legal.

The_Panda
14th May 2008, 8:13 AM
Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

And how much would marijuana cause ? A hell of a lot less for sure

Is that due to the use or inherent dangerousness of the aforementioned two drugs though.

TrueCharizard
14th May 2008, 9:12 AM
I never said that minors use more drugs than adults. What I'm saying is that kids do want drugs, and they would not be able to get them legally. They can buy them from the black market, but not a legal business. Therefore, the black market gets 100% of the business from minors, while the legal retailers get 0%.

You're asking me to back up things I have never said.



Anyone who has a license doesn't risk losing it if they don't sell to minors. But drug dealers aren't going to go out and get licenses, so they're not risking losing them.



Okay, let's say I go down the block to my local drug dealer, and buy twenty dollars worth of marijuana from him. It's twenty dollars worth of marijuana, I have just given him twenty dollars, and he has just made a twenty dollar sale. Where is any tax collected in this typical drug dealer transaction?



Say I live in an apartment complex. Say one of my neighbors grows and uses marijuana in his apartment, and I can smell the smoke in my apartment, not to mention the disturbances I hear at all hours of the night from his acquaintances popping by for a smoke. Does that not infringe my right to be undisturbed in my own home?

Also, I would be tempted to believe a source you provide that is not absolutely dripping in bias. There probably aren't any that suit your purposes, though.



Why could legalization and regulation deal with something more effectively than criminalization and regulation? If kids are simply smoking pot for the criminally-induced rush, what's to stop them from moving on to something more dangerous that's still illegal. And, besides, tobacco and alcohol are in the state a proposed legalization would place marijuana, and kids mainly do those for the "criminal mystique," probably because they are so easy to get.



Tobacco and alcohol are very much more gateway drugs than marijuana, yet they're legal. Your argument falls apart.



Not only do governments pay farmers to follow quotas, but no intelligent farmer will be constantly using all of his land, especially if he's growing corn. So, the reasoning for laying crops out in piles is to fulfill quotas, and empty fields are a result both quotas and letting the fields accumulate essential nutrients over the period that they are not used so that the land remains arable (which is another reason for quotas, so that all fields are not used up in cycles, which would result in food shortages). So, basically, if a farmer's field is empty, there's probably reasons they aren't growing anything.



Well, like you said yourself, it can become addictive (rather easily, actually) even if it has no properties to indicate it. And, like I said earlier, and others have been saying now, legalization would make companies jump on the opportunity to sell marijuana (as it would become an unfilled niche in the market), and they, just like the tobacco companies (if they weren't the same, which is a distinct possibility), would add addictive ingredients to the products they sell. Which adds even more credibility to my main argument, as people would probably rather buy from a dealer who doesn't add chemicals for certain than a company that wants to coerce you to buy their product via any means.



Could you elaborate on this further or put it in context, please? By itself, it really doesn't make any sense.

Like someone else has pointed, use may not necessarily go up if it were legal. Think prohibition. You also assume so many ifs and buts about the plants production.

As for my final statement, most good music made within the last fifty years was done whilst influenced by drugs. The Beatles, most of their songs were LSD or cannabis influenced. If you feel drugs have no use to anyone, you shouldn't be listening to music influenced by them.

Also, Crick who came up with the double helix model admitted that were it not for LSD and cannabis he would never have understood the thing.

I think you need to investigate the pros and cons of the sale of soft drugs in Amsterdam.

GhostAnime
14th May 2008, 9:25 AM
Are you serious? If something was previously illegal and used, and made legal, anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you that its use will only go up in any given demographic.but youre talking about a black market that wont make jack crap compared to the legal market. there is little profit in just selling to minors once its legalized.


You have incredibly minimalistic knowledge of how our market operates, don't you? A license something that says that the business in possession of it has permission of the government to be selling whatever it is that they are selling, be it food, souvenirs, gas, or anything. I can't just ring up an agency and say, "Yes, I'd like to sell tobacco, how much for a license."look, how about this: point out a difference between weed, alcohol, and cigarettes with licensing.


That's because there is no cigarette black market, and there never was, which is not the case with marijuana.irrelevant. you cant just exclude cigarettes because of this. theres plenty of profit in selling legal cigarettes to adults just as theres plenty of profit in selling weed to adults. if this example is not good enough for you, replace it with alcohol which was also once banned.


That's a VERY big if. In fact, it is so big, that it's really not even worth the risk.then you want to ban loud music? you want to ban alcohol again? you cant special plead.


Okay, if the reason actually is dumb, you don't summarize why it is with each of the points that you believe indicate that, nor do you ever say it outright. If the reason is dumb, you simply have to explain all factors in their entirety, and the case makes itself. Not to mention, back then, it was considered fine and dandy to send your children off to the factory every day and use mustard gas, while it was absolutely vulgar and profane for a woman to show her ankles. Point being; times change.youre right. times change. however, there werent any serious cases of weed doing anything anymore worse than alcohol back then. so if times change, then its time to change and legalize a product that infringes on your right as much as a loud stereo system.

Profesco
15th May 2008, 3:12 PM
Also, Crick who came up with the double helix model admitted that were it not for LSD and cannabis he would never have understood the thing.

I hate to be the pushy type, but I'd really like to see a credible source for this statement. In all the books I've read and movies I've been shown about the origin of the structure of DNA's discovery, even interviews with Crick (or the other one maybe?) at his home, this has never been brought up.

So, I guess what people here say is, "source or it didn't happen."

$Cash$
15th May 2008, 5:05 PM
I never wrote that lol, I dunno who Crick is



How is cannabis more dangerous than ecstasy, steroids, and LSD?

Honestly that's a good question, I think they just put it higher on the list because of the millions of people abusing it everyday, because I would say ecstasy is very safe but definitely more dangerous than cannabis because you can overdose on ecstasy

$Cash$
15th May 2008, 5:05 PM
I never wrote that lol, I dunno who Crick is



How is cannabis more dangerous than ecstasy, steroids, and LSD?

Honestly that's a good question, I think they just put it higher on the list because of the millions of people abusing it everyday, because I would say ecstasy is very safe but definitely more dangerous than cannabis because you can overdose on ecstasy

TrueCharizard
15th May 2008, 5:32 PM
I never wrote that lol, I dunno who Crick is



Honestly that's a good question, I think they just put it higher on the list because of the millions of people abusing it everyday, because I would say ecstasy is very safe but definitely more dangerous than cannabis because you can overdose on ecstasy

It could also be due to the effect of psychsosis and habitual addiction.

Whilst LSD has a much crazier effect on the mind, its usually short lived. Unless you're a certain pal of mine, you couldn't do it every day.

http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_crick_dna_lsd.html

^ To the person who wants to know about Crick and LSD.

GrizzlyB
16th May 2008, 5:10 AM
Like someone else has pointed, use may not necessarily go up if it were legal. Think prohibition. You also assume so many ifs and buts about the plants production.

How about instead of me wearing my argument into the ground, you give me a reason the usage level would not go up? I've already given my reasons why it would, I'd like to hear a dissent other than, "well you don't know that." Nor do you give any reasons why marijuana would be grown in the United States apart from the empty fields, which I've given other reasons for. Besides, if those field were to be used, why not on an essential crop or food rather than marijuana?


As for my final statement, most good music made within the last fifty years was done whilst influenced by drugs. The Beatles, most of their songs were LSD or cannabis influenced. If you feel drugs have no use to anyone, you shouldn't be listening to music influenced by them.

I partly concede your point here. While its an exaggeration to say that most of the Beatles' music has those influences, some most definitely do, and many other artists besides, especially in classic rock-type music (which, incidentally, I listen to nearly exclusively). Plus, I've never said whether drugs have uses or not, I'm merely arguing against legalizing them. Besides, you're forgetting that this music was written with marijuana and anything else being illegal, so I'm not feeling any ill effects from it.

Regardless, I don't know why I'd burn my music. Even though I listen to a genre largely associated with drugs, the majority of my most favorite bands are uninfluenced by them or sing against them.


Also, Crick who came up with the double helix model admitted that were it not for LSD and cannabis he would never have understood the thing.

Yet, he wouldn't admit that without Rosalind Franklin's picture of a DNA strand he would've been equally (actually, more so) in the dark. Plus, Watson and Crick were a pair, so it's not like he's the singular hero or anything.


I think you need to investigate the pros and cons of the sale of soft drugs in Amsterdam.

You are aware that the Netherlands and the United States are very different places, yes? Generally speaking, the United States offers a lot more freedom than European countries, which means that something that is safe/dangerous in one country may be dangerous/safe in the other (usually safe to dangerous in regards to transferring to the US).


but youre talking about a black market that wont make jack crap compared to the legal market. there is little profit in just selling to minors once its legalized.

Please, enlighten me as to why there won't be any money to be made in a market with consumers willing to buy a product, especially if said consumers can't go anywhere else. I'll save you some time: there is no reason.


look, how about this: point out a difference between weed, alcohol, and cigarettes with licensing.

If marijuana was legalized, there wouldn't be one, besides disparagement between the legal ages to buy them. The thing is that individuals aren't issued licenses; businesses are.


irrelevant. you cant just exclude cigarettes because of this. theres plenty of profit in selling legal cigarettes to adults just as theres plenty of profit in selling weed to adults. if this example is not good enough for you, replace it with alcohol which was also once banned.

The difference may be that marijuana usage or possession is a misdemeanor at best, whereas during Prohibition, selling, making, or drinking alcohol was a felony? That would most certainly drive up a black market price as opposed to a legal market one.


then you want to ban loud music? you want to ban alcohol again? you cant special plead.

No, but those aren't the same as marijuana, either. Besides, both of them have restrictions on them, just not as stringent as those of marijuana.


youre right. times change. however, there werent any serious cases of weed doing anything anymore worse than alcohol back then. so if times change, then its time to change and legalize a product that infringes on your right as much as a loud stereo system.

Yes, and alcohol was banned, too, if you'll recall. The difference being that people decided that they couldn't live without alcohol; marijuana, not so much. And besides, there are plenty of things that infringe on rights minimally, and are illegal. Change doesn't happen just because it can; there's got to be a catalyst driving it, a reason for it to change.

chuboy
16th May 2008, 7:56 AM
How about instead of me wearing my argument into the ground, you give me a reason the usage level would not go up? I've already given my reasons why it would, I'd like to hear a dissent other than, "well you don't know that." Nor do you give any reasons why marijuana would be grown in the United States apart from the empty fields, which I've given other reasons for. Besides, if those field were to be used, why not on an essential crop or food rather than marijuana?
If they were to be used, would they not be used already? Besides, not all marijuana-friendly soils are friendly to food. I hate how people assume that because something grows you can plant its seeds anywhere and it will thrive.


You are aware that the Netherlands and the United States are very different places, yes? Generally speaking, the United States offers a lot more freedom than European countries,Here is where the flaw in your argument is. How can you POSSIBLY say the USA offers more freedom than the Netherlands? The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries there are. You get sent to jail for having pot in the USA and that makes you MORE free than in the Netherlands?

Confusing logic...


which means that something that is safe/dangerous in one country may be dangerous/safe in the other (usually safe to dangerous in regards to transferring to the US).Ah, I see! So smoking pot in Europe is safer than smoking pot in the USA?

Nope. Making drugs legal is actually SAFER, because it reduces crimes related to illegal drug dealing (such as organised crime, bashings, murders, robbery, etc).


Please, enlighten me as to why there won't be any money to be made in a market with consumers willing to buy a product, especially if said consumers can't go anywhere else. I'll save you some time: there is no reason.If you can buy it in a shop, there isn't going to be a black market for it, is there. I mean really. Drug dealers aren't going to be able to compete with chemists for the price - they only make money now because they can sell for hugely inflated prices. No one is going to buy a potential killer from a street-dealer when they can get perfectly safe pills from a chemist at a fifth of the price.

The only potential market is those who are underage (if such a limit were imposed) and that isn't enough to warrant illegal dealing. Do you see a huge market for dealing alcohol to minors? No. The closest to black trading is getting adult friends to buy the goods on minor's behalf and that happens anyway.



If marijuana was legalized, there wouldn't be one, besides disparagement between the legal ages to buy them. The thing is that individuals aren't issued licenses; businesses are.There are places called pharmacies you know. They sell all sorts of drugs that pubs and supermarkets can't sell you. They could always keep them in there. Licensing would therefore not be an issue.



The difference may be that marijuana usage or possession is a misdemeanor at best, whereas during Prohibition, selling, making, or drinking alcohol was a felony? That would most certainly drive up a black market price as opposed to a legal market one.Don't know what you're saying but you don't have an argument anyway. Legalizing drugs and making them available for purchase at a chemist's will decrease black-market-trading related crimes and will not significantly change the usage of drugs in minors (based on a reasonable model).




Yes, and alcohol was banned, too, if you'll recall. The difference being that people decided that they couldn't live without alcohol; marijuana, not so much. And besides, there are plenty of things that infringe on rights minimally, and are illegal. Change doesn't happen just because it can; there's got to be a catalyst driving it, a reason for it to change.How about those Australian drug-dealers who were sentenced to death for transporting drugs to Indonesia? They were under the instructions of a drug-lord who would probably have killed them if they didn't get the job done. How about those people who die because they take drugs that have been loaded with other delicious chemicals? What about people who are bashed to death by the mafia because they can't pay back $250 for that desperate shot of heroin?

Now, if there was NO market for black-market drugs none of these people would be in a situation like that. Don't stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen, it does.

GhostAnime
16th May 2008, 12:01 PM
Please, enlighten me as to why there won't be any money to be made in a market with consumers willing to buy a product, especially if said consumers can't go anywhere else. I'll save you some time: there is no reason.ill save you some time: minor usage will still decrease due to the market getting smaller. im not saying it wont exist. im saying they will be discouraged in selling to the minors because of huge profits to the adults. makes sense to me.


If marijuana was legalized, there wouldn't be one, besides disparagement between the legal ages to buy them. The thing is that individuals aren't issued licenses; businesses are.i dont see a difference yet.


The difference may be that marijuana usage or possession is a misdemeanor at best, whereas during Prohibition, selling, making, or drinking alcohol was a felony? That would most certainly drive up a black market price as opposed to a legal market one.possessing it was still illegal. selling it would still give you jail time.

again, i see no differences.


No, but those aren't the same as marijuana, either. Besides, both of them have restrictions on them, just not as stringent as those of marijuana.both can have restrictions SIMILAR to marijuana. whats wrong with that? point out how its so much different from abusing weed.


Yes, and alcohol was banned, too, if you'll recall. The difference being that people decided that they couldn't live without alcohol; marijuana, not so much. And besides, there are plenty of things that infringe on rights minimally, and are illegal. Change doesn't happen just because it can; there's got to be a catalyst driving it, a reason for it to change.now youre just saying it should stay illegal because the effects are less drastic than the prohibition act? thats no reason to keep anything illegal. the fact that you can compare it to alcohol (which is much more dangerous) should convince you that legalizing it should be fine.

Profesco
16th May 2008, 5:59 PM
http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_crick_dna_lsd.html

^ To the person who wants to know about Crick and LSD.

Wow, then I guess it could be true. Poor Crick is not the most noble man... As GrizzlyB pointed, out, his discovery was made largely thanks to another scientist's work. Crick and some colleagues at another college were competing for this discovery, and Crick was keeping tabs on Franklin's work with X-ray crystallography.

This small article talks about it very tamely. (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.php)

The documentary I was shown in Bio 101 at college was a little more critical of Crick's ethics.

Ah well. It's time for a quote I heard somewhere a while ago:

"For every light, there is a darkness."

TrueCharizard
16th May 2008, 8:53 PM
Wow, then I guess it could be true. Poor Crick is not the most noble man... As GrizzlyB pointed, out, his discovery was made largely thanks to another scientist's work. Crick and some colleagues at another college were competing for this discovery, and Crick was keeping tabs on Franklin's work with X-ray crystallography.

This small article talks about it very tamely. (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.php)

The documentary I was shown in Bio 101 at college was a little more critical of Crick's ethics.

Ah well. It's time for a quote I heard somewhere a while ago:

"For every light, there is a darkness."

I've heard about this as well, but I think Franklin's work would have gone more unnoticed where it not for Crick's work.

GrizzlyB
17th May 2008, 3:48 AM
If they were to be used, would they not be used already? Besides, not all marijuana-friendly soils are friendly to food. I hate how people assume that because something grows you can plant its seeds anywhere and it will thrive.

I am completely aware of what is required for plants to grow. Which is why, if you'd read a previous post before jumping in to something entirely directed to someone else, you'd have seen that I said that fields were kept empty to either fill quotas or allow for time for nutrients to be replenished instead of perpetually draining them with constant agriculture on them.


Here is where the flaw in your argument is. How can you POSSIBLY say the USA offers more freedom than the Netherlands? The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries there are. You get sent to jail for having pot in the USA and that makes you MORE free than in the Netherlands?

Confusing logic...

You equate drug legality with freedoms? And when I say that America's more free, I mean in regards to laws like this (http://english.justitie.nl/themes/identification/index.aspx). Not my idea of a free country, but whatever floats your boat.


Ah, I see! So smoking pot in Europe is safer than smoking pot in the USA?

Nope. Making drugs legal is actually SAFER, because it reduces crimes related to illegal drug dealing (such as organised crime, bashings, murders, robbery, etc).

Yeah, pretty much.

Really? I have lots of friends who smoke marijuana, and out of all them, zero have ever been involved in organized crime, bashing, murder, or robbery. However, about five have had car wrecks whilst smoking, and most of them have hurt themselves or others at least moderately seriously under the influence of marijuana. And that's with it illegal. Now, maybe those aren't crimes per se, but I'd say that they're certainly dangerous.


If you can buy it in a shop, there isn't going to be a black market for it, is there. I mean really. Drug dealers aren't going to be able to compete with chemists for the price - they only make money now because they can sell for hugely inflated prices. No one is going to buy a potential killer from a street-dealer when they can get perfectly safe pills from a chemist at a fifth of the price.

The only potential market is those who are underage (if such a limit were imposed) and that isn't enough to warrant illegal dealing. Do you see a huge market for dealing alcohol to minors? No. The closest to black trading is getting adult friends to buy the goods on minor's behalf and that happens anyway.

So, why exactly, if they're selling the same product, will going to a store be a fifth the price of going to a drug dealer if a store has to apply taxes that would undoubtedly be very high? South American countries aren't going to stop exporting drugs, and I doubt that they'll give any hugely significant price reduction to the legal markets that will be low enough to nullify the tax they'd have to apply to selling to a consumer.

The market is to those who are underage, don't want nicotine in their joints (which I'd bet money would be the case, as is with cigarettes), or don't want to pay as much (which is a distinct possibility at the rate I'd predict). And, no, there's no minor alcohol black market, but I attribute that to the fact that there was no similar market before hand when alcohol was legalized (speakeasies are not similar to dealers, if that's what you're thinking).


There are places called pharmacies you know. They sell all sorts of drugs that pubs and supermarkets can't sell you. They could always keep them in there. Licensing would therefore not be an issue.

Another thing you've brazenly missed. The license issue is that GhostAnime says that drug dealers would obtain licenses to sell marijuana easily and legally, and therefore would not sell to minors (to avoid the risk of getting it confiscated for breaking the laws about selling to minors). I said, however, that drug dealers would not get licenses, making his reason for not selling to minors null, and that was my rationalization of that right there; licenses are issued to businesses, not individuals, like drivers' or hunting licenses would be, which seemed to be the impression he had.


Don't know what you're saying but you don't have an argument anyway. Legalizing drugs and making them available for purchase at a chemist's will decrease black-market-trading related crimes and will not significantly change the usage of drugs in minors (based on a reasonable model).

Maybe. Maybe not. Legalizing them may only increase the black market due to a significant portion of the risk being stripped away, and it might not. However, I refuse to believe that minor usage would remain unaffected. Whether it's direct purchasing through the black market, or having adults buy it legally for them, it's going to go up in one way or another. That's something I'm very certain of.


How about those Australian drug-dealers who were sentenced to death for transporting drugs to Indonesia? They were under the instructions of a drug-lord who would probably have killed them if they didn't get the job done. How about those people who die because they take drugs that have been loaded with other delicious chemicals? What about people who are bashed to death by the mafia because they can't pay back $250 for that desperate shot of heroin?

Now, if there was NO market for black-market drugs none of these people would be in a situation like that. Don't stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen, it does.

So, you're suggesting that all illicit materials be legalized? Great idea. That way, somebody can be arrested in a foreign country for leaving a stray bag of coke in their suitcase en route somewhere else, everything anybody smokes can be laced with whatever anyone feels like, and people can still become addicted to heroin and wind up in the gutter and die there, as opposed to at a mafias' hands. And it'd all be legal. Hooray!


ill save you some time: minor usage will still decrease due to the market getting smaller. im not saying it wont exist. im saying they will be discouraged in selling to the minors because of huge profits to the adults. makes sense to me.

Pray tell: which market is going to shrink and why?


i dont see a difference yet.

I said that there weren't differences in regards to licensed selling except that tobacco can be bought at age eighteen, alcohol at twenty-one, and marijuana at whatever age they'd set it to (seems that everyone is predisposed to eighteen, though).


possessing it was still illegal. selling it would still give you jail time.

again, i see no differences.

Wrong. Mostly.

An infraction is what most marijuana-related charges are, which are generally just a fine, or very little jail time (a few days at most). A misdemeanor is more severe, with bigger fines and/or more jail time, up to a year, but more than an infraction would warrant. A felony, though, is a crime punishable by more than a year imprisoned in a federal prison, most often several, probably with a very sizable fine or bail. Now tell me there's no difference.


both can have restrictions SIMILAR to marijuana. whats wrong with that? point out how its so much different from abusing weed.

Barely know what you're talking about. But tell me, why, if marijuana is no different from music or alcohol, are employers so concerned about whether or not their employees smoke weed? I'm thinking that marijuana is different.


now youre just saying it should stay illegal because the effects are less drastic than the prohibition act? thats no reason to keep anything illegal. the fact that you can compare it to alcohol (which is much more dangerous) should convince you that legalizing it should be fine.

Sorta. It's one of the non-repercussions of having it illegal. And, really, should alcohol be legal, either? No, but so many people protested for the Eighteenth Amendment to be repealed that it was. Now, maybe I'm in an isolated sort of place, but I don't see anything that is, for all intents and purposes, a nationwide protest against marijuana being illegal.

chuboy
17th May 2008, 4:11 AM
Yeah, pretty much.
>.<


Really? I have lots of friends who smoke marijuana, and out of all them, zero have ever been involved in organized crime, bashing, murder, or robbery. However, about five have had car wrecks whilst smoking, and most of them have hurt themselves or others at least moderately seriously under the influence of marijuana. And that's with it illegal. Now, maybe those aren't crimes per se, but I'd say that they're certainly dangerous.
So what? What you have basically said is people will drug drive whether it's legal or not. If you think that being able to hurt other people under the influence of drugs is fair grounds for banning it then alcohol should go as well.

You can keep your eyes tightly shut if you want, but the fact is people DO get killed by drug gangs. 5 of your friends, unfortunately, does not reflect the entire drug-taking population. They get addicted then can't pay the high price. Legalizing it makes it available from safe sources at undebatably lower prices.


So, why exactly, if they're selling the same product, will going to a store be a fifth the price of going to a drug dealer if a store has to apply taxes that would undoubtedly be very high? South American countries aren't going to stop exporting drugs, and I doubt that they'll give any hugely significant price reduction to the legal markets that will be low enough to nullify the tax they'd have to apply to selling to a consumer.
Are you kidding? The point of legalizing the drug is to STOP black market trading. Hence, low prices are set, driving them out of business. If the government sets out to make a profit from it they will not succeed in eradicating the issue.


The market is to those who are underage, don't want nicotine in their joints (which I'd bet money would be the case, as is with cigarettes), or don't want to pay as much (which is a distinct possibility at the rate I'd predict).
You're being naive as to how the situation would be after it were legalized. In my view, you should be able to walk into a chemist's and ask for marijuana, they will then go to a safe and get you marijuana that is regulated by a government agency. You pay a heap less than the street price, and you can be guaranteed of its purity. Safe, cheap marijuana for those who still want it.



Another thing you've brazenly missed. The license issue is that GhostAnime says that drug dealers would obtain licenses to sell marijuana easily and legally, and therefore would not sell to minors (to avoid the risk of getting it confiscated for breaking the laws about selling to minors). I said, however, that drug dealers would not get licenses, making his reason for not selling to minors null, and that was my rationalization of that right there; licenses are issued to businesses, not individuals, like drivers' or hunting licenses would be, which seemed to be the impression he had.
No, no, people who already have licenses to sell controlled drugs can sell the marijuana/other substance. No one else.



Maybe. Maybe not. Legalizing them may only increase the black market due to a significant portion of the risk being stripped away, and it might not. However, I refuse to believe that minor usage would remain unaffected. Whether it's direct purchasing through the black market, or having adults buy it legally for them, it's going to go up in one way or another. That's something I'm very certain of.
Why do minors use marijuana? Because it's rebellious to do illegal things. If anyone can have it then the market is just drug addicts and not rebels. This is a negative image and therefore minor usage would decrease because only those who smoke marijuana as an addiction would do it, not those who are trying to be rebel.



So, you're suggesting that all illicit materials be legalized? Great idea. That way, somebody can be arrested in a foreign country for leaving a stray bag of coke in their suitcase en route somewhere else, everything anybody smokes can be laced with whatever anyone feels like, and people can still become addicted to heroin and wind up in the gutter and die there, as opposed to at a mafias' hands. And it'd all be legal. Hooray!
You don't get it do you? The idea is to prevent lacing, black market trading and arrests in other countries. Make it legal to buy a safe does from a pharmacy. Jeez...

Heroin addicts wind up in the gutter because they spend everything they have. If heroin is cheap then addicts won't have this problem. Though heroin IS something which would have to be carefully controlled.

GrizzlyB
17th May 2008, 4:56 AM
>.<

The reason it's safer is there's less to stir up trouble with in somewhere that's not the US. I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that people drive less in other countries and don't have as easy access to things like firearms (though the latter probably doesn't really matter with marijuana too much).


So what? What you have basically said is people will drug drive whether it's legal or not. If you think that being able to hurt other people under the influence of drugs is fair grounds for banning it then alcohol should go as well.

Er, do you know what the ratio of driving under the influence of illegal drugs is to driving under the influence of legal drugs (alcohol, basically). Yeah...


You can keep your eyes tightly shut if you want, but the fact is people DO get killed by drug gangs. 5 of your friends, unfortunately, does not reflect the entire drug-taking population. They get addicted then can't pay the high price. Legalizing it makes it available from safe sources at undebatably lower prices.

And gangs only kill people for a missed payment or so, right? At least here, they'll kill people for straying into "their" neighborhood. There're much bigger problems than just drugs to them, and legalizing them would curb violence minimally, at best.


Are you kidding? The point of legalizing the drug is to STOP black market trading. Hence, low prices are set, driving them out of business. If the government sets out to make a profit from it they will not succeed in eradicating the issue.

I'm sure the public will appreciate the government creating yet another program that will assuredly lose money. Besides, the most cited reason to legalize marijuana has been to tax it for big bucks. Intentionally losing money kind of defeats that purpose. And, it's not like drug dealers have their prices undercut, don't sell, and close up shop. Once the prices are raised again, which would happen (unless you somehow think that possibly lowered crime rates outweighs assuredly losing money), they'd just start selling again.


You're being naive as to how the situation would be after it were legalized. In my view, you should be able to walk into a chemist's and ask for marijuana, they will then go to a safe and get you marijuana that is regulated by a government agency. You pay a heap less than the street price, and you can be guaranteed of its purity. Safe, cheap marijuana for those who still want it.

I still say you'd pay a heap more. And the way you're describing it sounds more like a prescription drug than cigarettes or tobacco.


No, no, people who already have licenses to sell controlled drugs can sell the marijuana/other substance. No one else.

And that "no one else" includes drug dealers, right? My point exactly.


Why do minors use marijuana? Because it's rebellious to do illegal things. If anyone can have it then the market is just drug addicts and not rebels. This is a negative image and therefore minor usage would decrease because only those who smoke marijuana as an addiction would do it, not those who are trying to be rebel.

Then by your logic, there is no such thing as underage smoking or drinking. Last I checked, there was. A lot of it.


You don't get it do you? The idea is to prevent lacing, black market trading and arrests in other countries. Make it legal to buy a safe does from a pharmacy. Jeez...

Okay, why is marijuana laced now? I thought it was because people wanted to smoke it. Sounds like, if anything, it'd be easier to lace, because there are no illegal substances. I really can't comprehend how slackening control on something is supposed to give you more control over it.


Heroin addicts wind up in the gutter because they spend everything they have. If heroin is cheap then addicts won't have this problem. Though heroin IS something which would have to be carefully controlled.

That's one of the worst arguments I've heard yet. It's highly addictive, highly dangerous, and you want to make it cheaper so they can get more bang for their buck? They're going to spend all their money on it, regardless of cost. But there again, if your idea is that they die before they spend all of their money, I suppose I concede the effectiveness to you.

chuboy
17th May 2008, 8:03 AM
The reason it's safer is there's less to stir up trouble with in somewhere that's not the US. I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that people drive less in other countries and don't have as easy access to things like firearms (though the latter probably doesn't really matter with marijuana too much).
Well, that's America's problem then, isn't. But the actual ACT of smoking marijuana is as safe anywhere in the world as anywhere else.




Er, do you know what the ratio of driving under the influence of illegal drugs is to driving under the influence of legal drugs (alcohol, basically). Yeah...
No, I don't know the ratio, what is it?

Either way, it will happen whether legalised or not, so the point is moot.



And gangs only kill people for a missed payment or so, right?
I'm not talking about gangs, I'm talking about drug lords and underground rings and organised crime.


At least here, they'll kill people for straying into "their" neighborhood. There're much bigger problems than just drugs to them, and legalizing them would curb violence minimally, at best.
Any improvement is welcome, no?


I'm sure the public will appreciate the government creating yet another program that will assuredly lose money.
Since when did the fire brigade and police force ever make money for the people? This is about reducing drug crimes, not about profiteering.


Besides, the most cited reason to legalize marijuana has been to tax it for big bucks.
Well that isn't my position on it. I feel that it should be available to those who want it, without the risk of becoming involved with the underworld or getting marijuana laced with something else.


Once the prices are raised again, which would happen (unless you somehow think that possibly lowered crime rates outweighs assuredly losing money), they'd just start selling again.
Why would the prices go up? They can easily undercut the street price by a half or two thirds and still break even.

And reluctant as you are to accept that putting drug-dealers out of business will lower crime, you cannot deny that this will happen, can you?



I still say you'd pay a heap more. And the way you're describing it sounds more like a prescription drug than cigarettes or tobacco.
That's the way I think it should be. As far as I'm concerned, any drug with strong physically addictive properties should only be available at a chemist.



And that "no one else" includes drug dealers, right? My point exactly.
I never made that argument against you. I'm against any particular individual having the right to distribute drugs.



Then by your logic, there is no such thing as underage smoking or drinking. Last I checked, there was. A lot of it.
By my logic minors will not do something 'to be rebel' if it's legal. Drinking and smoking, last I checked, was illegal if you are a minor.



Okay, why is marijuana laced now? I thought it was because people wanted to smoke it. Sounds like, if anything, it'd be easier to lace, because there are no illegal substances. I really can't comprehend how slackening control on something is supposed to give you more control over it.
Because you can be assured that your pill/weed/whatever will be just what you asked for and not a concotion of bleach, motor oil and Cheese Wizz.



That's one of the worst arguments I've heard yet. It's highly addictive, highly dangerous, and you want to make it cheaper so they can get more bang for their buck? They're going to spend all their money on it, regardless of cost. But there again, if your idea is that they die before they spend all of their money, I suppose I concede the effectiveness to you.
Whether it's legal or not, people who want heroin enough will get it. With legalized heroin you can keep track of who has it and also prevent people becoming addicted in the first place by educating before they buy some - for instance, making them sign or state that they know they will become addicted to it, etc. That way, the onus is placed on the person to be responsible.

Although admittedly harder drugs like morphine and coke are a bit of a different story, I think good would come from letting the people who are addicted to it be addicted to it safely.

GhostAnime
17th May 2008, 12:40 PM
Pray tell: which market is going to shrink and why?ive already explained it a hundred times.

there will be little profit in selling to minors. the ones that once sold them to minors will want profit thus they get licenses and sell them to adults not risking the license for profits. the newcomers will just get a license like normal and do the same.

some people will still do it but will have a MUCH harder time. minors could simply mooch off of their 'older family member' the same way they smoke cigarettes.


I said that there weren't differences in regards to licensed selling except that tobacco can be bought at age eighteen, alcohol at twenty-one, and marijuana at whatever age they'd set it to (seems that everyone is predisposed to eighteen, though).and marijuana can be bought at whichever age restriction is necessary. the age restriction is what helps the decrease the minor usage of weed.


An infraction is what most marijuana-related charges are, which are generally just a fine, or very little jail time (a few days at most). A misdemeanor is more severe, with bigger fines and/or more jail time, up to a year, but more than an infraction would warrant. A felony, though, is a crime punishable by more than a year imprisoned in a federal prison, most often several, probably with a very sizable fine or bail. Now tell me there's no difference.isnt there a certain amount of crack to own to get jail time?

either way they were both illegal. thats all that matters.


Barely know what you're talking about. But tell me, why, if marijuana is no different from music or alcohol, are employers so concerned about whether or not their employees smoke weed? I'm thinking that marijuana is different.because theyre biased against people who do illegal things. make it legal, remove the taboo, and itll be just like cigarettes.


but I don't see anything that is, for all intents and purposes, a nationwide protest against marijuana being illegal.and this is no reason to keep it that way. the criminals are sure wanting it legal.

Narutopokedude
18th May 2008, 12:30 AM
Absolutley not.

Marijuana is clinicly proven to make you lazier, that's exactly what we need more of today; more lazy people.

If it was legal, then more people would be liklier to try it, like ciggarettes, our society would fall apart...

Also, name someone who is addicted to marujauna that is actually a benefit to society.

GhostAnime
18th May 2008, 12:39 AM
Marijuana is clinicly proven to make you lazier, that's exactly what we need more of today; more lazy people.source.


If it was legal, then more people would be liklier to try it, like ciggarettes, our society would fall apart...yeah, thats what they said about alcohol. how on earth would society fall apart because of it?


Also, name someone who is addicted to marujauna that is actually a benefit to society.this is no reason to keep something illegalized.

for the record, barack obama did weed.

Narutopokedude
18th May 2008, 12:52 AM
source.

yeah, thats what they said about alcohol. how on earth would society fall apart because of it?

this is no reason to keep something illegalized.



I'm not going to go find a source for your sceptical ***

I've seen health videos, ect.

Work around the point all you want, it won't change the fact that marijuana would make everyone lazier and lead to the fall of our society.

Potheads are lazy, and that's final.

Sorry...


for the record, barack obama did weed.

Haha, exactly my point :p

Btw, the only reason he doesn't do weed now is because it's illegal, if were legal, he'd still be doing it, therefore he'd be just like all the other potheads.

GhostAnime
18th May 2008, 12:54 AM
evasion noted. dont post in a debate forum if all youre going to do is make it a shout match. this isnt high school.

Narutopokedude
18th May 2008, 12:57 AM
evasion noted. dont post in a debate forum if all youre going to do is make it a shout match. this isnt high school.

I didn't evade anything, the source I used was a health video, do you want me to go through the trouble of tracking down the tape and sending it to you, somehow

Jeez, you're dumb...

Go watch a health class video. There's your source.

GhostAnime
18th May 2008, 1:08 AM
if its something thats so well established, it should be on the internet as well.

come back when you have a source.

oh, and btw, you still need to explain on how it makes society worse. society didnt seem so bad before it was banned.

GrizzlyB
18th May 2008, 1:12 AM
Well, that's America's problem then, isn't. But the actual ACT of smoking marijuana is as safe anywhere in the world as anywhere else.

Well, the actual act of doing almost anything is safe anywhere; it's the consequences that may occur which are dangerous. Besides, the only way that would stop being "America's problem" is to restrict those things, which would assuredly be taken less in stride than illegal marijuana.


No, I don't know the ratio, what is it?

Either way, it will happen whether legalised or not, so the point is moot.


Williams et al. in a study involving 440 cases, demonstrated as in the above studies that alcohol had a higher culpability ratio compared with culpable drug-free drivers (92% vs 71%). However, those drivers in whom only cannabis was detected were less likely to be responsible for the crashes (53% vs 71%).
Here (http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/publications-articles/cannabis-marijuana-plus-alcohol-driving-performance-study.htm)'s where I got this from. But about a 1:1.74 ratio. And this (http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm) indicates that driving whist high is indeed dangerous, if you thought the contrary.

And people will still murder one another whether or not it's legal, so does that make anti-killing laws moot, too? Or any law for that matter? The ratio speaks for itself.


I'm not talking about gangs, I'm talking about drug lords and underground rings and organised crime.

They sound to more more like hardcore drug dealers and traffickers who will always be involved in illegal activity. So, legalizing drugs would probably just move them to another vocation.


Any improvement is welcome, no?

I'm pretty sure that you just stated the contrary.


Since when did the fire brigade and police force ever make money for the people? This is about reducing drug crimes, not about profiteering.

This isn't about fire brigades or police making money, it's about government not starting up extremely costly, minimally effective, and barely supported programs.


Well that isn't my position on it. I feel that it should be available to those who want it, without the risk of becoming involved with the underworld or getting marijuana laced with something else.

And it's the government's responsibility to provide this?


Why would the prices go up? They can easily undercut the street price by a half or two thirds and still break even.

You're forgetting that the street prices wouldn't stay constant, because almost all of the risk of dealing marijuana would be taken away if it were to be legalized, which would result in a price drop on their end.


And reluctant as you are to accept that putting drug-dealers out of business will lower crime, you cannot deny that this will happen, can you?

If it actually puts and keeps drug dealers out of business, then no. But I am highly reluctant to accept that there is a plausible way to do this sans enormous cost.


That's the way I think it should be. As far as I'm concerned, any drug with strong physically addictive properties should only be available at a chemist.

Then one would have to get a prescription for it, which would generally just make it easier to go to a dealer instead.


I never made that argument against you. I'm against any particular individual having the right to distribute drugs.

Like I said, you were responding against a point I made against GhostAnime. It really doesn't apply to either of us here (seeing as we're in agreement).


By my logic minors will not do something 'to be rebel' if it's legal. Drinking and smoking, last I checked, was illegal if you are a minor.

Au contraire. Where I live, it's legal for minors to smoke tobacco. And yet, a very large percentage of them do it.


Because you can be assured that your pill/weed/whatever will be just what you asked for and not a concotion of bleach, motor oil and Cheese Wizz.

The reason this happens now isn't that the government wants to allow it, it's because it doesn't have any obligation to regulate a market that shouldn't be there in the first place.


Whether it's legal or not, people who want heroin enough will get it. With legalized heroin you can keep track of who has it and also prevent people becoming addicted in the first place by educating before they buy some - for instance, making them sign or state that they know they will become addicted to it, etc. That way, the onus is placed on the person to be responsible.

Although admittedly harder drugs like morphine and coke are a bit of a different story, I think good would come from letting the people who are addicted to it be addicted to it safely.

So why should we drastically simplify the process for people to get heroin? And what does it matter if we know who's using it or not? And do you think addicts are really in the dark about the risk it poses to them, and would not be were it legal and talked about? And it's not like anyone besides the addict is held responsible now.

So, legality = safety, now?


ive already explained it a hundred times.

there will be little profit in selling to minors. the ones that once sold them to minors will want profit thus they get licenses and sell them to adults not risking the license for profits. the newcomers will just get a license like normal and do the same.

some people will still do it but will have a MUCH harder time. minors could simply mooch off of their 'older family member' the same way they smoke cigarettes.

In a phrase: drug dealers can't get licenses.


and marijuana can be bought at whichever age restriction is necessary. the age restriction is what helps the decrease the minor usage of weed.

Yeah. Your point being...?


isnt there a certain amount of crack to own to get jail time?

either way they were both illegal. thats all that matters.

You're absolutely right. That's why we equate a petty thief with a serial killer; both activities are illegal.


because theyre biased against people who do illegal things. make it legal, remove the taboo, and itll be just like cigarettes.

You're acting like bias against a choice is a bad thing. It's going to exist, regardless, so legalizing marijuana would scarcely help here.


and this is no reason to keep it that way. the criminals are sure wanting it legal.

So, we should legalize everything else, because criminals want them legal?

ndralcasid
18th May 2008, 5:05 AM
I have many friends that do weed.

A good amount of them are on the Dean's List, and virtually all of them are indeed intelligent.

Stop saying that weed results in lower intelligence and other condescending comments like "Potheads are lazy, and that's final." It makes you look like and idiot. Many people are actually responsible with toking up recreationally

Profesco
18th May 2008, 5:59 AM
And people will still murder one another whether or not it's legal, so does that make anti-killing laws moot, too? Or any law for that matter?

Right, GrizzlyB. I still fail to see how that argument is any kind of sensible logic.


because theyre biased against people who do illegal things. make it legal, remove the taboo, and itll be just like cigarettes.

Biased against people who do illegal things? Of course anyone is going to be biased against somebody who does illegal things- that's one of the points about a thing being illegal! The answer simply can't be "make it legal." Where in the world does a person get that idea from?

chuboy
18th May 2008, 7:47 AM
Well, the actual act of doing almost anything is safe anywhere; it's the consequences that may occur which are dangerous. Besides, the only way that would stop being "America's problem" is to restrict those things, which would assuredly be taken less in stride than illegal marijuana.
Well how about instead of blaming gang crime on marijuana use (or whatever you are trying to do) realise that in effect it has little influence and that controlling gang culture in the first place is the obvious thing to do.


Here (http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/publications-articles/cannabis-marijuana-plus-alcohol-driving-performance-study.htm)'s where I got this from. But about a 1:1.74 ratio. And this (http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm) indicates that driving whist high is indeed dangerous, if you thought the contrary.No, I realise drug-driving is dangerous. But making marijuana legal to purchase doesn't making driving while high legal - just as legalised alcohol does not equate to legalised drink-driving.

I don't see how the fact the some people will drive while high is grounds enough to stop anybody from using the drug legally.


And people will still murder one another whether or not it's legal, so does that make anti-killing laws moot, too? Or any law for that matter? The ratio speaks for itself.That isn't really relevant. I said that whether marijuana use is legal or not, drug-driving will still happen, so the 'drug-driving is dangerous' argument isn't enough to make marijuana itself illegal.

It would be rather like making knives illegal because you can stab people with them. It's not the knife itself that is wrong, it's the stabbing.


They sound to more more like hardcore drug dealers and traffickers who will always be involved in illegal activity. So, legalizing drugs would probably just move them to another vocation.And...? How many other illegal vocations are there that involve profitting from selling people potentially fatal illegal subtances?



I'm pretty sure that you just stated the contrary.
Well I'm 'pretty sure' that I've won the argument. Does that mean I have?



This isn't about fire brigades or police making money, it's about government not starting up extremely costly, minimally effective, and barely supported programs.I know, but saying 'it won't make money for the government' isn't a reason to stop the government initiating it. Police and fire services have never made a cent for the government, and it's fair to say that a good portion of the money spent on keeping so many of them in working order is wasted since they are kept idle almost all of the time.

That doesn't mean we should close them though. Likewise, just because making drugs safely available wouldn't make money for the government doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.


And it's the government's responsibility to provide this?Laws are made to make things fair and safe for everybody. By your logic, it isn't the government's responsibility to make standards of car safety since if everyone did the right thing no one would ever need seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, road barriers, headrests, etc.



You're forgetting that the street prices wouldn't stay constant, because almost all of the risk of dealing marijuana would be taken away if it were to be legalized, which would result in a price drop on their end.How low can street prices get if chemists are getting their product directly from legal sources? It would come to a point that even if the prices were close together, the risk of not getting 'just marijuana' from a dodgy street dealer outweighs the slightly longer walk to a chemist's, I guess.


If it actually puts and keeps drug dealers out of business, then no. But I am highly reluctant to accept that there is a plausible way to do this sans enormous cost.How expensive could it be? It's just one more stocked item in a pharmacy storeroom, and you are also forgetting that the cost of drug-dealers on society would be greatly reduced as well, balancing out the blow (pun intended), if any, while also reducing crime.


Then one would have to get a prescription for it, which would generally just make it easier to go to a dealer instead.Yeah, when I need a prescription drug I always buy the slightly more convenient homemade product from street dealer, as opposed to the genuine, government regulated product from a registered pharmacist.



Au contraire. Where I live, it's legal for minors to smoke tobacco. And yet, a very large percentage of them do it.Duly noted. So you think that if smoking were illegal, these kids wouldn't be smoking?

Also, if it's legal they can do what they want. Smoking kills, whatever. They aren't being forced to do it, so what's the problem? They know it's bad and they still want to poison themselves. I say let natural selection do it's business.


The reason this happens now isn't that the government wants to allow it, it's because it doesn't have any obligation to regulate a market that shouldn't be there in the first place.See the post about regulating car safety. Summing: if people do the right thing their cars don't crash. Therefore, the government does not need to make standards of car safety.



So why should we drastically simplify the process for people to get heroin? And what does it matter if we know who's using it or not? And do you think addicts are really in the dark about the risk it poses to them, and would not be were it legal and talked about? And it's not like anyone besides the addict is held responsible now.Well, whether it's legal or not, they will anyway. The least we can do is allow them to die from heroin use and not from a combination of injecting themselves with some sort of undefinable concotion synthesised in a home lab and AIDS from a used needle.



So, legality = safety, now?Well, I would like to the think the laws are in place to make things fair and safe for everyone, so yes. If it's safe and fair, it should be legal.

GhostAnime
18th May 2008, 11:10 AM
In a phrase: drug dealers can't get licenses.why?


You're absolutely right. That's why we equate a petty thief with a serial killer; both activities are illegal.but a guy who smokes weed in privacy is none of these and infringes on nobody's rights like these two.


So, we should legalize everything else, because criminals want them legal?i never said this should be the reason but i at least answered your question about the people who want it legal =P.


Right, GrizzlyB. I still fail to see how that argument is any kind of sensible logic.you dont get it. murder HELPS. outlawing weed HELPS. not to mention that murder and smoking weed arent even that comparable in the first place when it comes to doing something bad.


Biased against people who do illegal things? Of course anyone is going to be biased against somebody who does illegal things- that's one of the points about a thing being illegal! The answer simply can't be "make it legal." Where in the world does a person get that idea from?will you think outside the box for a moment? i cringe at the thought of people being biased against something simply because its illegal; look and read closer than that. is the guy smoking drugs really a criminal? was rosa parks a criminal? you think so? why? because she did something illegal? shame on you profesco.

GrizzlyB
18th May 2008, 12:11 PM
Well how about instead of blaming gang crime on marijuana use (or whatever you are trying to do) realise that in effect it has little influence and that controlling gang culture in the first place is the obvious thing to do.

Er, gang crime? I haven't brought up gangs unprovoked this whole time. I was referring to restricting driving and firearms privileges, to make smoking marijuana more safe, both of which would be met with the utmost resistance here.


No, I realise drug-driving is dangerous. But making marijuana legal to purchase doesn't making driving while high legal - just as legalised alcohol does not equate to legalised drink-driving.

I don't see how the fact the some people will drive while high is grounds enough to stop anybody from using the drug legally.

The answer lies in the accident ratios. When the legal drug has a significantly higher rate of incidence than the illegal one, it's a pretty safe bet that it's for that exact reason.

The reason it should be stopped is the potential harm it poses to other, uninvolved people, such as pedestrians, who could get hurt or killed if someone drives while high. And though the same applies to alcohol, there's definitely a reason that's legal.


That isn't really relevant. I said that whether marijuana use is legal or not, drug-driving will still happen, so the 'drug-driving is dangerous' argument isn't enough to make marijuana itself illegal.

It would be rather like making knives illegal because you can stab people with them. It's not the knife itself that is wrong, it's the stabbing.

Again, the key is in the occurrence of incidents. The fact that many more drunk accidents happen than high, even though driving drunk is illegal, shows this. The illegality's working somewhere.

The only difference between marijuana and a knife is that a knife is used intentionally and directly to harm someone if it does; if marijuana does this, it has neither of these traits.


And...? How many other illegal vocations are there that involve profitting from selling people potentially fatal illegal subtances?

Well, none, but there are plenty that would involve stealing from, harming, or killing people without potentially fatal illegal substances.


Well I'm 'pretty sure' that I've won the argument. Does that mean I have?

No. It means that you indicated that you found a disparity in the numbers of legal drug-driving instances to those of illegal drug-driving an insignificant number, while saying that "any improvement is welcome" in regards to a potential drop in gang activity.


I know, but saying 'it won't make money for the government' isn't a reason to stop the government initiating it. Police and fire services have never made a cent for the government, and it's fair to say that a good portion of the money spent on keeping so many of them in working order is wasted since they are kept idle almost all of the time.

That doesn't mean we should close them though. Likewise, just because making drugs safely available wouldn't make money for the government doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

The difference being that police and fire departments serve a pivotal role in society, whereas marijuana, or any drug, for that matter, does not.

And, obviously the government isn't out there to make a profit. But to incur huge loses, necessitating the cutting of funds from other, arguably more important, funds is not a good idea, especially if those monetary loses come with minimal benefit.


Laws are made to make things fair and safe for everybody. By your logic, it isn't the government's responsibility to make standards of car safety since if everyone did the right thing no one would ever need seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, road barriers, headrests, etc.

Except that it can be argued that cars are essential in a society, and it is therefore in the government's best interest to regulate them. Marijuana, not so much.


How low can street prices get if chemists are getting their product directly from legal sources? It would come to a point that even if the prices were close together, the risk of not getting 'just marijuana' from a dodgy street dealer outweighs the slightly longer walk to a chemist's, I guess.

Regardless, the marijuana's coming from another country, most likely in South America. I don't think that they care too much if they're selling to a business or an individual (except for a bulk discount, maybe). And if you really believe that the risk is so great of your marijuana from a dealer being laced, then I guess you would go to a chemist. But, that doesn't deter anyone from buying now, when that risk is apparently much more real.


How expensive could it be? It's just one more stocked item in a pharmacy storeroom, and you are also forgetting that the cost of drug-dealers on society would be greatly reduced as well, balancing out the blow (pun intended), if any, while also reducing crime.

I don't know. You're selling it to lose money, so the more you're selling, the more money you're losing. And I'm pretty sure that if it's legal and cheaper than a dealer, everyone's going to want to get some.


Yeah, when I need a prescription drug I always buy the slightly more convenient homemade product from street dealer, as opposed to the genuine, government regulated product from a registered pharmacist.

The difference is bolded, my good man.


Duly noted. So you think that if smoking were illegal, these kids wouldn't be smoking?

I think that they'd be smoking less.


Also, if it's legal they can do what they want. Smoking kills, whatever. They aren't being forced to do it, so what's the problem? They know it's bad and they still want to poison themselves. I say let natural selection do it's business.

Social Darwinism is SO 20th century.


See the post about regulating car safety. Summing: if people do the right thing their cars don't crash. Therefore, the government does not need to make standards of car safety.

You could equate the two if car-driving was illegal or car dealerships planting car bombs in the cars they sold was an issue. But they're not.


Well, whether it's legal or not, they will anyway. The least we can do is allow them to die from heroin use and not from a combination of injecting themselves with some sort of undefinable concotion synthesised in a home lab and AIDS from a used needle.

If you're dead, you're dead. Barely anyone outside your family really cares how. If legalizing heroin would actually prevent large numbers of deaths, I could understand the logic behind legalizing it. But, if it's just a simple altering of how, most likely resulting in even more deaths and addictions, it couldn't possibly be worth it on any level.


Well, I would like to the think the laws are in place to make things fair and safe for everyone, so yes. If it's safe and fair, it should be legal.

Except that drugs tend not to be fair for everyone.


Right, GrizzlyB. I still fail to see how that argument is any kind of sensible logic.

What, mine? Oh, I do say, that has left me rather flabbergasted. Could you elaborate on this further one way or the other?

GhostAnime, your post showed up after I put mine on, and it's already dreadfully late. I'll respond on the morrow.

Profesco
19th May 2008, 7:03 AM
you dont get it. murder HELPS. outlawing weed HELPS.

Wait- what? I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. What are you saying, GhostAnime?


will you think outside the box for a moment? i cringe at the thought of people being biased against something simply because its illegal; look and read closer than that. is the guy smoking drugs really a criminal? was rosa parks a criminal? you think so? why? because she did something illegal? shame on you profesco.

Lol, whoops! Good catch, GhostAnime. Well, if what she did was against the law, then technically, she was a criminal by definition... Lol, I hope I'm not digging myself into a ditch here. Anyway, I think if I were to really go further into this vein, I'd have to start arguing moral absolutism. I don't wanna do that; I'm too lazy. :)


What, mine? Oh, I do say, that has left me rather flabbergasted. Could you elaborate on this further one way or the other?

Oh, I'm sorry, GrizzlyB. I didn't mean your argument; I was actually throwing my support behind your argument. I just get totally lost over the opposing arguments of "If people are doing something harmful even if it's illegal, then just make it legal- that'll fix everything!"

GhostAnime
19th May 2008, 12:18 PM
Wait- what? I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. What are you saying, GhostAnime?that there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between murdering laws and marijuana laws.


Lol, whoops! Good catch, GhostAnime. Well, if what she did was against the law, then technically, she was a criminal by definition... Lol, I hope I'm not digging myself into a ditch here. Anyway, I think if I were to really go further into this vein, I'd have to start arguing moral absolutism. I don't wanna do that; I'm too lazy. :)whats this have to do with morals? to any decent person, a guy minding his own business sounds pretty fine.

TrueCharizard
19th May 2008, 1:38 PM
I'm not going to go find a source for your sceptical ***

I've seen health videos, ect.

Work around the point all you want, it won't change the fact that marijuana would make everyone lazier and lead to the fall of our society.

Potheads are lazy, and that's final.

Sorry...



Haha, exactly my point :p

Btw, the only reason he doesn't do weed now is because it's illegal, if were legal, he'd still be doing it, therefore he'd be just like all the other potheads.

You sound like a short sighted conservative.

Whilst I can be capable of being lazy, I was always lazy, it was never anything to do with smoking pot. However, it doesn't mean I am capable of working hard.

I often achieve outstanding grades, despite having written an essay whilst high. During the holidays I work incredibly hard in jobs. Then I get high. The law shouldn't stop me from relaxing in the way I chose when I do no-one any harm. If you don't want to take my personal account, have a look at the European countries with relaxed laws on it.

Huge numbers of people in Holland and Denmark smoke weed. They also work very hard and have a very consistent economy. Denmark has a very high minimum wage because of the strong economy. There are plenty of jobs too.

America is in recession. Who's fault? Conservatives.

TrueCharizard
19th May 2008, 1:44 PM
Wait- what? I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. What are you saying, GhostAnime?



Lol, whoops! Good catch, GhostAnime. Well, if what she did was against the law, then technically, she was a criminal by definition... Lol, I hope I'm not digging myself into a ditch here. Anyway, I think if I were to really go further into this vein, I'd have to start arguing moral absolutism. I don't wanna do that; I'm too lazy. :)


Moral absolutism is an incredibly poor line of argument for cannabis laws. One could argue its more immoral to infringe on someone's freedom and how they want to live their life. Trying to "protect" people from dangers of societies leads to things like The Patriot Act and people being imprisoned for things they have nothing to do with. Its quite well known there are a lot of people in Guantanamo bay despite having no connection to Al Qaeida or the Talbian. Whilst I know this is a bit off track to the main debate, I feel there is nothing immoral about someone using a substance unless it affects someone else in a negative fashion.

Me sparking up a joint in my own privacy has no affect on anyone else.

TrueCharizard
19th May 2008, 1:52 PM
Er, gang crime? I haven't brought up gangs unprovoked this whole time. I was referring to restricting driving and firearms privileges, to make smoking marijuana more safe, both of which would be met with the utmost resistance here.



The answer lies in the accident ratios. When the legal drug has a significantly higher rate of incidence than the illegal one, it's a pretty safe bet that it's for that exact reason.

The reason it should be stopped is the potential harm it poses to other, uninvolved people, such as pedestrians, who could get hurt or killed if someone drives while high. And though the same applies to alcohol, there's definitely a reason that's legal.



Again, the key is in the occurrence of incidents. The fact that many more drunk accidents happen than high, even though driving drunk is illegal, shows this. The illegality's working somewhere.

The only difference between marijuana and a knife is that a knife is used intentionally and directly to harm someone if it does; if marijuana does this, it has neither of these traits.



Well, none, but there are plenty that would involve stealing from, harming, or killing people without potentially fatal illegal substances.



No. It means that you indicated that you found a disparity in the numbers of legal drug-driving instances to those of illegal drug-driving an insignificant number, while saying that "any improvement is welcome" in regards to a potential drop in gang activity.



The difference being that police and fire departments serve a pivotal role in society, whereas marijuana, or any drug, for that matter, does not.

And, obviously the government isn't out there to make a profit. But to incur huge loses, necessitating the cutting of funds from other, arguably more important, funds is not a good idea, especially if those monetary loses come with minimal benefit.



Except that it can be argued that cars are essential in a society, and it is therefore in the government's best interest to regulate them. Marijuana, not so much.



Regardless, the marijuana's coming from another country, most likely in South America. I don't think that they care too much if they're selling to a business or an individual (except for a bulk discount, maybe). And if you really believe that the risk is so great of your marijuana from a dealer being laced, then I guess you would go to a chemist. But, that doesn't deter anyone from buying now, when that risk is apparently much more real.

If you're dead, you're dead. Barely anyone outside your family really cares how. If legalizing heroin would actually prevent large numbers of deaths, I could understand the logic behind legalizing it. But, if it's just a simple altering of how, most likely resulting in even more deaths and addictions, it couldn't possibly be worth it on any level.


Your whole argument is based on the belief use will go up. Your black market argument has completely been decimated by the fact its not an economically sound idea on the behalf of dealers. You don't need huge plots of land to grow cannabis either. It can be grown using hydroponics in a small space. Your argument of comparing cannabis to alcohol in regards to alcohol is also embarrassing. Alcohol is far worse. If there was an increase in accident rate of drug driving, it'd pale in comparison to the decrease of deaths related to the number of people going to prison for something that shouldn't be a crime. Going to prison often fails to rehabilitate a criminal and often puts them in a mindset that they will always be a criminal. Thus they get involved in violence in prisons and gang warfare. It helps nothing.

GrizzlyB
20th May 2008, 2:46 AM
Your whole argument is based on the belief use will go up. Your black market argument has completely been decimated by the fact its not an economically sound idea on the behalf of dealers. You don't need huge plots of land to grow cannabis either. It can be grown using hydroponics in a small space. Your argument of comparing cannabis to alcohol in regards to alcohol is also embarrassing. Alcohol is far worse. If there was an increase in accident rate of drug driving, it'd pale in comparison to the decrease of deaths related to the number of people going to prison for something that shouldn't be a crime. Going to prison often fails to rehabilitate a criminal and often puts them in a mindset that they will always be a criminal. Thus they get involved in violence in prisons and gang warfare. It helps nothing.

Are you saying that usage wouldn't go up? Besides, my argument is more based on the premise that people aren't going to want to pay the excessive tax rate on marijuana from a store, and will therefore go to a dealer. Furthermore, I never said that you need huge plots of land to grow cannabis, and to use hydroponics would not be particularly space-efficient or cheap (quite the contrary of the latter, actually). And I doubt that any incidences of death due to arrest for marijuana (I've never heard of any, so I'm tempted to pass it off as a fabrication) would outnumber the amount of death due to drug driving (even if it stayed constant, which I'm sure it wouldn't). Besides, you're going to have more than just possession of marijuana to go to prison, especially if it were for any amount of time that would facilitate developing a "prison mindset" as you described.

By the by, is it really necessary to post three consecutive times, even if it is to three different people?


why?

I'll reiterate myself here: licenses to sell merchandise are not given to individuals, only businesses. I can only imagine that would be more true if the license in question was for selling a controlled substance.


but a guy who smokes weed in privacy is none of these and infringes on nobody's rights like these two.

He's still breaking the law. And if precisely that is all he's doing, then he'll get only a fine, just like a parking ticket, which infringes on no one's rights either. I don't know why you're under the impression that people receive hard time for simple possession of marijuana (excepting a ridiculous amount or multiple-time offenders (maybe)).


i never said this should be the reason but i at least answered your question about the people who want it legal =P.

In all fairness, though, I don't think that criminals should be the ones we listen to if considering changing the status of their crimes.


Oh, I'm sorry, GrizzlyB. I didn't mean your argument; I was actually throwing my support behind your argument. I just get totally lost over the opposing arguments of "If people are doing something harmful even if it's illegal, then just make it legal- that'll fix everything!"

Excellent. My suspicions were that that was the case, but I do hate to misinterpret such things.

TrueCharizard
20th May 2008, 3:32 AM
Are you saying that usage wouldn't go up? Besides, my argument is more based on the premise that people aren't going to want to pay the excessive tax rate on marijuana from a store, and will therefore go to a dealer. Furthermore, I never said that you need huge plots of land to grow cannabis, and to use hydroponics would not be particularly space-efficient or cheap (quite the contrary of the latter, actually). And I doubt that any incidences of death due to arrest for marijuana (I've never heard of any, so I'm tempted to pass it off as a fabrication) would outnumber the amount of death due to drug driving (even if it stayed constant, which I'm sure it wouldn't). Besides, you're going to have more than just possession of marijuana to go to prison, especially if it were for any amount of time that would facilitate developing a "prison mindset" as you described.

By the by, is it really necessary to post three consecutive times, even if it is to three different people?



I'll reiterate myself here: licenses to sell merchandise are not given to individuals, only businesses. I can only imagine that would be more true if the license in question was for selling a controlled substance.



He's still breaking the law. And if precisely that is all he's doing, then he'll get only a fine, just like a parking ticket, which infringes on no one's rights either. I don't know why you're under the impression that people receive hard time for simple possession of marijuana (excepting a ridiculous amount or multiple-time offenders (maybe)).



In all fairness, though, I don't think that criminals should be the ones we listen to if considering changing the status of their crimes.


I apologize about the multiple posting, I haven't quite worked out how to quote three people in the same post.

Your bottom statement proves the point I have been making for years.

By having cannabis illegal, it creates an air of criminality to the drug. You view me as a criminal. In actuality I am a functioning member of society who poses as much threat to the system as the next normal, functioning member of society. There are those who look down and me and are judgmental, but I have as much to offer to the world as they do. Much like GA said, Rosa Parks was considered a criminal, was the law really just? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Those that get sent to prison for possession are the dealers. There are plenty of people who grow their own weed, or sell weed who are like me, not "scumbags". My plea for legislation is not to do with helping them so much, or preventing people from getting fined for use, but to make cannabis safer. That is in terms of acquiring it and the quality of the plant.

Whilst we could make assumptions of the rates of use (I would suggest they go up, but I doubt they would sky rocket, although perhaps people would be more inclined to try it through curiosity), I'm going to tackle your argument head on, again.

Cannabis if it were taxed could be taxed at a reasonable rate. Furthermore, if it were legal it would cost less than it does on the street.

The reason why drugs are the price they are is because they are illegal.

When you sell drugs, there is a chance you can go to jail. Or that somebody may want to steal your drugs and sell them themselves. On these two accounts (and several more), you are putting yourself in danger.

Much like firemen, police and oil rig workers, putting one self in danger demands more money. To grow cannabis and transport it, it costs as much as every other plant. The profit involved comes from the "danger money" aspect. Remove the danger and allow cannabis to sold in the proper outlets which will apply a tax to the product and you can beat the "crooks".

Would it be likely that people will deal it at a lower rate to beat the taxes? No. If you can buy something from a trusted source at a reasonable rate, you won't go to someone selling it on the street just for a couple of dollars less. Its not practical and its potentially dangerous. Give the average pot smoker a place where he can chose right down to the very strain of cannabis they will be smoking and they would be very unlikely to turn to the man who for all they know may spray raid on the plant, or inject the bud with glass beads.

Lastly, the only argument of yours I can understand is your drug driving one. I can empathize with you on this point about this fear, but I have yet to be shown that those on cannabis are necessarily worse drivers. I have previously posted a link on youtube to someone shown to be driving better on the drug than whilst sober. Now, I know full well this may not be the case in every scenario, but if police aren't spending their time looking for the sale/distribution of illegal cannabis, they can redirect their attentions elsewhere - policing the roads, going after hard drug users etc. Tax money would also be used in hospitals. I do also think that those who cause accidents whilst under the influence should receive extremely high jail sentences, just like they should whilst drunk driving.

As a realist, I know full well cannabis may never be legal within our lifetime, but the laws about it are in my eyes, entirely unjust.

GrizzlyB
20th May 2008, 4:52 AM
I apologize about the multiple posting, I haven't quite worked out how to quote three people in the same post.

There's a quote button in the reply windows, just hit that (looks like a text bubble-sorta thing).


Your bottom statement proves the point I have been making for years.

That marijuana-smokers shouldn't have a say in whether or not marijuana is legalized?


By having cannabis illegal, it creates an air of criminality to the drug. You view me as a criminal. In actuality I am a functioning member of society who poses as much threat to the system as the next normal, functioning member of society. There are those who look down and me and are judgmental, but I have as much to offer to the world as they do. Much like GA said, Rosa Parks was considered a criminal, was the law really just? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The difference between Rosa Parks and someone who smokes marijuana is that prohibiting a person from riding on one section of a bus on the basis of their skin color is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And who has said that criminals don't have anything to offer to the world. Criminal behaviors don't, but not necessarily criminals.


Those that get sent to prison for possession are the dealers. There are plenty of people who grow their own weed, or sell weed who are like me, not "scumbags". My plea for legislation is not to do with helping them so much, or preventing people from getting fined for use, but to make cannabis safer. That is in terms of acquiring it and the quality of the plant.

As far as I know, the best, and perhaps only, way to be ascertained of the health risks posed to you by marijuana is to not smoke it, in which case the risk is zero, which is what the law does. Besides, I don't think that the government is in any way obligated to change their policies based on what lawbreakers say, regardless of whether or not they feel the law is just or not.


Whilst we could make assumptions of the rates of use (I would suggest they go up, but I doubt they would sky rocket, although perhaps people would be more inclined to try it through curiosity), I'm going to tackle your argument head on, again.

Righteous.


Cannabis if it were taxed could be taxed at a reasonable rate. Furthermore, if it were legal it would cost less than it does on the street.

It could be, but I sincerely doubt that it would. Cigarettes already run at a pretty steep rate, and I'd bet my best hat that marijuana would only be higher. And yes, it would cost less than on the street... right now.


The reason why drugs are the price they are is because they are illegal.

This I know.


When you sell drugs, there is a chance you can go to jail. Or that somebody may want to steal your drugs and sell them themselves. On these two accounts (and several more), you are putting yourself in danger.

And this.


Much like firemen, police and oil rig workers, putting one self in danger demands more money. To grow cannabis and transport it, it costs as much as every other plant. The profit involved comes from the "danger money" aspect. Remove the danger and allow cannabis to sold in the proper outlets which will apply a tax to the product and you can beat the "crooks".

Like you said, the "danger money" is removed from the equation, meaning that it is also safer to deal weed, making those who do much more lax and liberal about their methods. Furthermore, businesses typically set base prices of goods at 2.5-3 times the cost of purchase. Add a tax to that, and its rather more expensive than buying "factory direct," so to speak. I bet that a drug dealer would be content with a profit about equal to the cost of merchandise, making it at least a third of the price cheaper when going to a dealer. Assuming that marijuana would still not be the cheapest of commodities, that could add up to big savings.


Would it be likely that people will deal it at a lower rate to beat the taxes? No. If you can buy something from a trusted source at a reasonable rate, you won't go to someone selling it on the street just for a couple of dollars less. Its not practical and its potentially dangerous. Give the average pot smoker a place where he can chose right down to the very strain of cannabis they will be smoking and they would be very unlikely to turn to the man who for all they know may spray raid on the plant, or inject the bud with glass beads.

I'll compare this to pirating music from a P2P source. Now, most people I know do this, despite the risk posed of getting viruses on your computer, or even being caught pirating, solely due to the savings involved. However, at least the risk of getting viruses may be alleviated by knowing what downloads are reliable, and what you will. Same for buying drugs. You go to dealers to save money, despite the risk, but you can also learn which dealers will peddle a quality product over laced or bunk stuff, making it an economical choice.


Lastly, the only argument of yours I can understand is your drug driving one. I can empathize with you on this point about this fear, but I have yet to be shown that those on cannabis are necessarily worse drivers. I have previously posted a link on youtube to someone shown to be driving better on the drug than whilst sober. Now, I know full well this may not be the case in every scenario, but if police aren't spending their time looking for the sale/distribution of illegal cannabis, they can redirect their attentions elsewhere - policing the roads, going after hard drug users etc. Tax money would also be used in hospitals. I do also think that those who cause accidents whilst under the influence should receive extremely high jail sentences, just like they should whilst drunk driving.

To answer, I posted two sources, on the last page, I believe, one of which showed the rate of legal (alcohol) drug driving to illegal (specifically, marijuana) drug driving instances. Unsurprisingly, the legal drug rate was significantly higher than the illegal one. The other source indicates that marijuana-driving is not a safe endeavor. And, you say that police efforts would be redirected, but how often is it that police are specifically looking for small-time marijuana users? Also, you say that hospitals will receive tax money, but what good is a hospital to a dead man?


As a realist, I know full well cannabis may never be legal within our lifetime, but the laws about it are in my eyes, entirely unjust.

Just don't compare yourself to the civil rights movement; that was factually unjust, not just an opinion.

Profesco
20th May 2008, 5:22 AM
that there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between murdering laws and marijuana laws. Um, I guess I'll just drop this point, whichever point it is... I'm not paying enough attention to identify the link between what you said before and wht you've said here.


whats this have to do with morals? to any decent person, a guy minding his own business sounds pretty fine.


Moral absolutism is an incredibly poor line of argument for cannabis laws. One could argue its more immoral to infringe on someone's freedom and how they want to live their life. Trying to "protect" people from dangers of societies leads to things like The Patriot Act and people being imprisoned for things they have nothing to do with. Its quite well known there are a lot of people in Guantanamo bay despite having no connection to Al Qaeida or the Talbian. Whilst I know this is a bit off track to the main debate, I feel there is nothing immoral about someone using a substance unless it affects someone else in a negative fashion.

Me sparking up a joint in my own privacy has no affect on anyone else.

Okay, calm down you two. I acknowledged that arguing moral absolutism was something I wouldn't do. I'm beyond certain that I'd never get an agreement from either of you on a single context.

I have a question: does anyone know why marijuana was made illegal in the first place? Does anyone know of the first record of its use?

TrueCharizard
20th May 2008, 11:26 AM
That marijuana-smokers shouldn't have a say in whether or not marijuana is legalized?


You referred to pot smokers as criminals. Yes, by the law they are but the word criminal has a certain connotation. It often tars one person with the same brush as a lot of other people.



The difference between Rosa Parks and someone who smokes marijuana is that prohibiting a person from riding on one section of a bus on the basis of their skin color is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And who has said that criminals don't have anything to offer to the world. Criminal behaviors don't, but not necessarily criminals.

As far as I know, the best, and perhaps only, way to be ascertained of the health risks posed to you by marijuana is to not smoke it, in which case the risk is zero, which is what the law does. Besides, I don't think that the government is in any way obligated to change their policies based on what lawbreakers say, regardless of whether or not they feel the law is just or not.

It could be, but I sincerely doubt that it would. Cigarettes already run at a pretty steep rate, and I'd bet my best hat that marijuana would only be higher. And yes, it would cost less than on the street... right now.

Like you said, the "danger money" is removed from the equation, meaning that it is also safer to deal weed, making those who do much more lax and liberal about their methods. Furthermore, businesses typically set base prices of goods at 2.5-3 times the cost of purchase. Add a tax to that, and its rather more expensive than buying "factory direct," so to speak. I bet that a drug dealer would be content with a profit about equal to the cost of merchandise, making it at least a third of the price cheaper when going to a dealer. Assuming that marijuana would still not be the cheapest of commodities, that could add up to big savings.

I'll compare this to pirating music from a P2P source. Now, most people I know do this, despite the risk posed of getting viruses on your computer, or even being caught pirating, solely due to the savings involved. However, at least the risk of getting viruses may be alleviated by knowing what downloads are reliable, and what you will. Same for buying drugs. You go to dealers to save money, despite the risk, but you can also learn which dealers will peddle a quality product over laced or bunk stuff, making it an economical choice.

To answer, I posted two sources, on the last page, I believe, one of which showed the rate of legal (alcohol) drug driving to illegal (specifically, marijuana) drug driving instances. Unsurprisingly, the legal drug rate was significantly higher than the illegal one. The other source indicates that marijuana-driving is not a safe endeavor. And, you say that police efforts would be redirected, but how often is it that police are specifically looking for small-time marijuana users? Also, you say that hospitals will receive tax money, but what good is a hospital to a dead man?

Just don't compare yourself to the civil rights movement; that was factually unjust, not just an opinion.

Granted, to compare myself to the civil rights movement is a bit extreme and I have no real right to do so, but the fact is I am still standing up for what I believe in by doing what I want to do.

However, you are making too many incorrect assumptions about the price and taxes. The Netherlands makes millions of pounds a year from taxing cannabis without any noted major changes in the health of the public. They also have their police freed up to doing other things. The black market for cannabis more or less collapsed whenever it became available in Amsterdam. It was also found that users were significantly less likely to go onto using harder drugs after this point. One could also have a legal cap on how much someone is allowed to carry on themselves without a license to distribute. This license could go to only proprietors of cannabis coffee shops, etc. If it were legalized, I am not assuming there wouldn't be cases of people continuing to sell it untaxed, but I promise you it would never be anything near as how much it would be sold taxed and illegal cannabis would never be sold as much as it is now.

To elaborate, you talk about the use of dead people to a hospital, well I'll put it simply. More taxes means more spending on hospitals = better/more staff and facilities = more care = potentially less dead people, in general. If road accidents went up, I'd suggest that in all likelihood, the health care improvements would lower the number of people dying when they could be treated. Also, less police dedicated to tackling soft drugs means they have their time freed up for bigger and more dangerous things.

Comparing a drug to illegal music is as moot point as me comparing myself to Rosa Parks. One can easily scan a computer file with a virus scanner. Even at the worst, you lose a computer, not your health. I would gladly suffer losing my computer if it meant my lungs were fine. Most people have little fear of being caught downloading. Whilst arrests have been made, one is much more likely to be let off with a fine. Unless internet police are on your case, then there is little to fear. Once again though, the evidence as to whether smoking cannabis does long term damage is inconclusive, there is evidence on either sides of the argument as I showed you earlier.

Similarly, you forget that traces of THC stays within the bloodstream for up to weeks at a time. Whilst a user may not be stoned whilst driving, if they were to have an accident and be drug tested, it would still show up in their body. Cannabis may also be a lot less dangerous to a driver than alcohol. Alcohol often inspires confidence in a person and may encourage them to do reckless things. When you are provoked whilst drunk, you are much more inclined to act in anger than you would whilst stoned. I posted a video of the effects of cannabis on a driver and it was shown to actually improve his ability because he was more relaxed and more concentrated on the road. The main fear would be loss of reaction time.

Profesco: It's believed to be a combination of racism against Mexicans and the fact that hemp rivaled the textile industry and Harry J. Anslinger was noted for having his fingers in a couple of cookie jars.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

chuboy
20th May 2008, 12:10 PM
Here's a thought: what, specifically, is so wrong about smoking marijuana in your own privacy that makes it worthy of being illegal?

GhostAnime
21st May 2008, 2:21 PM
I have a question: does anyone know why marijuana was made illegal in the first place? Does anyone know of the first record of its use?ive posted it at least twice in this topic. corruption.


I'll reiterate myself here: licenses to sell merchandise are not given to individuals, only businesses. I can only imagine that would be more true if the license in question was for selling a controlled substance.uh, right. my point still stands.


He's still breaking the law. And if precisely that is all he's doing, then he'll get only a fine, just like a parking ticket, which infringes on no one's rights either. I don't know why you're under the impression that people receive hard time for simple possession of marijuana (excepting a ridiculous amount or multiple-time offenders (maybe)).the parking ticket infringes on the rights of people wanting to drive in a certain zone; or the right of somebody parking there.


In all fairness, though, I don't think that criminals should be the ones we listen to if considering changing the status of their crimes.well, youre listening to me. youre listening to truecharizard. do we sound like criminals?

GrizzlyB
22nd May 2008, 3:56 PM
You referred to pot smokers as criminals. Yes, by the law they are but the word criminal has a certain connotation. It often tars one person with the same brush as a lot of other people.

I don't think that's necessarily true. At least for me, when I realize that somebody I know or might know is a criminal, the first thing I ask is, "What did they do?"


However, you are making too many incorrect assumptions about the price and taxes. The Netherlands makes millions of pounds a year from taxing cannabis without any noted major changes in the health of the public. They also have their police freed up to doing other things. The black market for cannabis more or less collapsed whenever it became available in Amsterdam. It was also found that users were significantly less likely to go onto using harder drugs after this point. One could also have a legal cap on how much someone is allowed to carry on themselves without a license to distribute. This license could go to only proprietors of cannabis coffee shops, etc. If it were legalized, I am not assuming there wouldn't be cases of people continuing to sell it untaxed, but I promise you it would never be anything near as how much it would be sold taxed and illegal cannabis would never be sold as much as it is now.

Millions of dollars in taxes would be peanuts. There's no way the tax rate would be that low here (and I would bet that it's much higher in the Netherlands, too). And are you certain that their police force has been "freed up?" Unless I'm mistaken, Amsterdam has always been more lax about marijuana rules, even when it was illegal. And I'd like you to show me something about the hard drug rate going down in Amsterdam, because I don't know if I believe it. And on your license point, a dealer could easily evade that by having just the limit on them at any given time, and keeping the rest of their stash at home or somewhere.


To elaborate, you talk about the use of dead people to a hospital, well I'll put it simply. More taxes means more spending on hospitals = better/more staff and facilities = more care = potentially less dead people, in general. If road accidents went up, I'd suggest that in all likelihood, the health care improvements would lower the number of people dying when they could be treated. Also, less police dedicated to tackling soft drugs means they have their time freed up for bigger and more dangerous things.

I was referring to people dead on the scene, not those in hospitals later. And, on the police thing, bear in mind that a very, very minuscule percentage of traffic violators get caught, and only an extremely drastic amount of extra police coverage is likely to change that.


Comparing a drug to illegal music is as moot point as me comparing myself to Rosa Parks. One can easily scan a computer file with a virus scanner. Even at the worst, you lose a computer, not your health. I would gladly suffer losing my computer if it meant my lungs were fine. Most people have little fear of being caught downloading. Whilst arrests have been made, one is much more likely to be let off with a fine. Unless internet police are on your case, then there is little to fear. Once again though, the evidence as to whether smoking cannabis does long term damage is inconclusive, there is evidence on either sides of the argument as I showed you earlier.

Not really. You can just go to a dealer you trust to avoid chemicals being sprayed on and other health risks. And the latter half of your paragraph here is pretty much exactly like marijuana is (little fear, probably a fine, only caught if police are right on your case). And as I've said before, I don't care about anything you say about health effects of smoking marijuana one way or the other.


Similarly, you forget that traces of THC stays within the bloodstream for up to weeks at a time. Whilst a user may not be stoned whilst driving, if they were to have an accident and be drug tested, it would still show up in their body. Cannabis may also be a lot less dangerous to a driver than alcohol. Alcohol often inspires confidence in a person and may encourage them to do reckless things. When you are provoked whilst drunk, you are much more inclined to act in anger than you would whilst stoned. I posted a video of the effects of cannabis on a driver and it was shown to actually improve his ability because he was more relaxed and more concentrated on the road. The main fear would be loss of reaction time.

So, you say that it would be impossible to enforce anti-stoned-driving laws? That's all the more reason to keep it illegal, then. And, not reacting in time is the key factor in pretty much any accident in any circumstance. This besides, your video had no conditions under which an accident would happen. They went much slower than highway or interstate speeds, and didn't have any real traffic.


uh, right. my point still stands.

Uh, no. If dealers can't get licenses, your point is completely, utterly, irreversibly destroyed.


the parking ticket infringes on the rights of people wanting to drive in a certain zone; or the right of somebody parking there.

So, if I park in a place with a sign saying, "No parking between 10AM-2PM" at noon, I'm infringing on somebody's right to drive through there? And by saying that it's violating someone else's right to park there, that would automatically imply that anyone parking anywhere where anyone else might want to would be an infringement on their rights, which we all know not to be true.


well, youre listening to me. youre listening to truecharizard. do we sound like criminals?

Not necessarily, but assuming that you smoke marijuana, you're not going to be the one to listen to in a legislative hearing, the same way you wouldn't listen to a pedophile regarding legal age laws (bad allusion, yeah).

GhostAnime
22nd May 2008, 4:01 PM
Uh, no. If dealers can't get licenses, your point is completely, utterly, irreversibly destroyed.its not that dealers wont be able to get licenses (i dont know why they wouldnt at least be able to try), but people wont go to dealers compared to just walking in a convenient store.


So, if I park in a place with a sign saying, "No parking between 10AM-2PM" at noon, I'm infringing on somebody's right to drive through there? And by saying that it's violating someone else's right to park there, that would automatically imply that anyone parking anywhere where anyone else might want to would be an infringement on their rights, which we all know not to be true.usually parking laws like that are for public places. anywhere else doesnt matter because it doesnt have as many people. they dont put that stuff just anywhere.


Not necessarily, but assuming that you smoke marijuana, you're not going to be the one to listen to in a legislative hearing, the same way you wouldn't listen to a pedophile regarding legal age laws (bad allusion, yeah).reasoning matters more than the actual person.

GrizzlyB
23rd May 2008, 3:38 AM
its not that dealers wont be able to get licenses (i dont know why they wouldnt at least be able to try), but people wont go to dealers compared to just walking in a convenient store.

They can try, they just won't get one. And I, personally, will go to the guy selling for cheaper what is, for all intents and purposes, the same product.


usually parking laws like that are for public places. anywhere else doesnt matter because it doesnt have as many people. they dont put that stuff just anywhere.

Generally speaking, rules about parking on private property are at the discretion of the owner.


reasoning matters more than the actual person.

Bias is something to watch out for, too.

TrueCharizard
27th May 2008, 7:21 PM
Overall, I think we can conclude there is more to gain from the legalization than the drug staying illegal.

GrizzlyB
27th May 2008, 10:25 PM
Here's a thought: what, specifically, is so wrong about smoking marijuana in your own privacy that makes it worthy of being illegal?

I'm guessing that you're thinking that nothing is wrong with marijuana in private. So then, what's the problem with keeping it illegal, where it is going to stay private, in a worst-case scenario? Nothing wrong there.


Overall, I think we can conclude there is more to gain from the legalization than the drug staying illegal.

Okay, you keep thinking that.

chuboy
28th May 2008, 7:07 AM
I'm guessing that you're thinking that nothing is wrong with marijuana in private. So then, what's the problem with keeping it illegal, where it is going to stay private, in a worst-case scenario? Nothing wrong there.
Keeping it illegal makes criminals out of people who doing absolutely nothing wrong, that's why. Just because they may not necessarily get caught using the marijuana at home doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted in the process of getting it.

Since there isn't anything inherently illegal about the act of smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home, surely it makes sense that they should be allowed to do it (and guaranteed safe marijuana to boot).

GrizzlyB
28th May 2008, 7:42 AM
Generally speaking, governments are concerned about public affairs, not private ones, and as such, laws implemented by them are oriented towards the good of the public, not the good of any given individual. So, if it's just safe to do at home, where one generally is not caught, there's no real reason to legalize it, especially considering that legalizing it will bring it out into the public, where it then actually can become a problem.

chuboy
28th May 2008, 7:51 AM
I see, so for instance it would be silly to legalise knives, because they are safe to use at home but could present a problem brought into the public?

I don't see how you are actually justifying yourself. I have stated that it is no more harmless to do in your own house than many other legal things, yet it remains against the law. Why is this? Surely, it is preposterous that it be illegal to smoke marijuana if it is not a 'bad' thing to do.

GrizzlyB
28th May 2008, 8:01 AM
As far as I know, marijuana is illegal largely due to the unintended consequences it may have on people besides the smoker, any of which will obviously be compounded in public. Something like a knife may have potentially dangerous consequences for people besides the user, too, but those would be completely intentional. Besides, knives have practical, even essential, uses. You can't say that for marijuana.

TrueCharizard
28th May 2008, 1:44 PM
As far as I know, marijuana is illegal largely due to the unintended consequences it may have on people besides the smoker, any of which will obviously be compounded in public. Something like a knife may have potentially dangerous consequences for people besides the user, too, but those would be completely intentional. Besides, knives have practical, even essential, uses. You can't say that for marijuana.

What I do whilst I listen to Ramble On has no effect on how you live your life.

bigpop618
28th May 2008, 3:42 PM
Okay, compare Marijuana to like ecstasy. I have actually done Marijuana before. What is so bad about it? When you smoke it, It's like a sleeping pill with euphoria mixed in. I've seen the stuff relax people that were stressed out.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7370

Now look at that..this is how many people went to jail in 2006 (I couldn't find 2007). 8x more people going to jail for possession rather than selling. If they legalize it, you realize that these people wouldn't be criminals?

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html

You look at this article, you can see that it isn't a gateway drug.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1441

This one takes the cake right here.


As with everything in the marijuana debate, getting a simple answer is not easy. You can find studies showing that users have a lower
IQ: but then, some of these studies don't take into account the fact that marijuana hangs around in the system for days. A 2001 study by Harrison Pope and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School and published in the Archives of General Psychiatry showed how critical
it was to allow all marijuana to 'wash out' from the system before measuring performance. Heavy, long-term users were compared with people who had never used the drug. The long-term users then underwent 28 days without smoking. In the first several days the
users scored well below the non-users in various mental tests. By day 28, there was no difference.

Another criticism of such studies is that the IQ difference between the two groups being tested might have nothing to do with marijuana use. One clever study got around this by subtracting each person's IQ score at age nine from their score at age 20. This study found that past marijuana use made no difference to a person's IQ.

The article states, That it can get addictive (Alcohol comes to mind). It states that the link between cancer and Marijuana is inconclusive. Some studies, not all, have said there is a link.

People become dependent on the drug (Alcohol, Perscription drugs, tobacco come to mind) if used heavily. So they say controlled use would be alright. Just like alcohol. The question is, why is it illegal? It has an image as this destructive drug when in reality its less harmful (based on the studies) than even tobacco. It makes you scratch your head when one of the most deadliest drugs out there is legal, but have you heard anyone dying from Marijuana alone?

http://www.serebiiforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8096521

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill

Smoking it causes emphysema but there are other ways to use it. The drug itself does not kill, and deaths involve accidents (Alcohol people). Essentially the drug is like Alcohol.

Will it be legalized? No. It has an image of being a destructive drug, People will always view it as destructive.

Should it? Based on the facts, if used in moderation, its no more harmful than alcohol. If heavlily used, it would cause POSSIBLE memory loss, but doesn't alcohol do that at all? and its inconclusive with any link with cancer. Should it be legalized? I think so.

GrizzlyB
28th May 2008, 8:08 PM
What I do whilst I listen to Ramble On has no effect on how you live your life.

If you're driving, it might. C'mon, Led Zeppelin's great no matter what state of mind you're in.


Okay, compare Marijuana to like ecstasy. I have actually done Marijuana before. What is so bad about it? When you smoke it, It's like a sleeping pill with euphoria mixed in. I've seen the stuff relax people that were stressed out.

Somehow, recreational euphoric sleeping pills don't strike me as too brilliant of an idea.


Now look at that..this is how many people went to jail in 2006 (I couldn't find 2007). 8x more people going to jail for possession rather than selling. If they legalize it, you realize that these people wouldn't be criminals?

I have no idea how many people went to jail in 2006 on marijuana-related charges.


You look at this article, you can see that it isn't a gateway drug.

When people refer to it as a gateway drug, they generally mean to harder drugs, like cocaine and what you will. That study involved three only: alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.


This one takes the cake right here.

So, how many people were actually tested? What sort of mental tests? That sounds too unspecific to really believe. Besides, they said that within a twenty-eight day period, their mental aptitude was severely affected, which hardly supports a pro-marijuana stance.


The article states, That it can get addictive (Alcohol comes to mind). It states that the link between cancer and Marijuana is inconclusive. Some studies, not all, have said there is a link.

That article about marijuana causing cancer seems rather skewed, too, due to the fact that no one over age 50 was checked, which is generally a non-cancer era of peoples' lives.


People become dependent on the drug (Alcohol, Perscription drugs, tobacco come to mind) if used heavily. So they say controlled use would be alright. Just like alcohol. The question is, why is it illegal? It has an image as this destructive drug when in reality its less harmful (based on the studies) than even tobacco. It makes you scratch your head when one of the most deadliest drugs out there is legal, but have you heard anyone dying from Marijuana alone?

Maybe marijuana remains illegal because of how big of screw-ups alcohol and tobacco already are. Besides, laws are rarely ever directed to help one's health, so that's hardly an issue.


Smoking it causes emphysema but there are other ways to use it. The drug itself does not kill, and deaths involve accidents (Alcohol people). Essentially the drug is like Alcohol.

So, why should we legalize it and almost certainly cause more accidents, then?


Will it be legalized? No. It has an image of being a destructive drug, People will always view it as destructive.

Among other things.


Should it? Based on the facts, if used in moderation, its no more harmful than alcohol. If heavlily used, it would cause POSSIBLE memory loss, but doesn't alcohol do that at all? and its inconclusive with any link with cancer. Should it be legalized? I think so.

Alcohol's pretty harmful, and two wrongs don't make a right. Not to mention that your own study showed that it had impact on mental ability if you were smoking or smoked recently, which is something to worry about (alcohol is much shorter-term in this regard, too). And the cancer link is inconclusive due to piss-poor studies being conducted on it.

GhostAnime
28th May 2008, 9:19 PM
on the gateway bit, what makes it a gateway drug? does pizza make people murder? im sure every murderer has eaten pizza before.

and yes, two wrongs dont make a right, and heavy use could be a problem to the user.. but so what? thats no reason to make it illegal. constantly listening to loud music makes you deaf.

Shinin
28th May 2008, 9:34 PM
on the gateway bit, what makes it a gateway drug? does pizza make people murder? im sure every murderer has eaten pizza before.

Although it is true that most people who do pot never do any harder drugs, it is also true that most people who do harder drugs started with pot.

GhostAnime
28th May 2008, 9:40 PM
sure. doesnt mean pot was the reason, however. thats a logical fallacy; hence the pizza example.

Profesco
28th May 2008, 10:30 PM
Well, I'm pretty bored with this debate...

Smoking/drinking/drugs all have arguments in favor of their legality based on the individual's right to do whatever they want to themselves. Yet we can see with smoking and drinking that they have consequences (or possible consequences) that affect persons and things besides the individual in question. The legality of these things perhaps is debatable, but the things they can do are generally just not things we want to happen.

So, on my trip out of this debate, I'll just say that it seems much simpler to leave marijuana illegal. Like GrizzlyB said, legalizing it is simply making it 'okay' to use in public. I wouldn't want it to end up like alcohol and cigarettes, all over everywhere you go, littering the ground, appearing on half the billboards and advertisements, reaching into every single person's life intrusively, unable to be escaped.

GhostAnime
28th May 2008, 10:43 PM
and i dont want our prisons constantly overcrowded and unnecessary crime rate; all for the sake of 'itll be everywhere' which... wont even happen?

Profesco
28th May 2008, 10:49 PM
Well, that's enough of a reason for me. Alcohol and cigarettes turned out to be poor habits/influences, and they're all over the place. Life is simpler with marijuana illegal.

GhostAnime
28th May 2008, 11:50 PM
do you even know how life was before it was illegal? *rolls eyes*

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 12:57 AM
on the gateway bit, what makes it a gateway drug? does pizza make people murder? im sure every murderer has eaten pizza before.

Pizza and murder are entirely uncorrelated, unlike two different varieties of drugs.


and yes, two wrongs dont make a right, and heavy use could be a problem to the user.. but so what? thats no reason to make it illegal. constantly listening to loud music makes you deaf.

I don't care what happens to whomever chooses to do whatever, and it is hardly a legal basis for anything. And listening to music until you go deaf is an individual choice, which can't legally impact another if they are not willing.


and i dont want our prisons constantly overcrowded and unnecessary crime rate; all for the sake of 'itll be everywhere' which... wont even happen?


do you even know how life was before it was illegal? *rolls eyes*

Based upon the status of cigarettes and alcohol today, which are pretty equivalent to what legal marijuana would be, I think Profesco has every reason to believe what he said.

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 1:04 AM
Pizza and murder are entirely uncorrelated, unlike two different varieties of drugs.

but its the exact same analogy. im sure murderers ate pizza before. im sure people who did hard drugs ate pizza before. you cant say weed automatically leads to doing harder drugs.


I don't care what happens to whomever chooses to do whatever, and it is hardly a legal basis for anything.more like hardly an illegal basis..


And listening to music until you go deaf is an individual choice, which can't legally impact another if they are not willing... so what does the weed impact besides the user?


Based upon the status of cigarettes and alcohol today, which are pretty equivalent to what legal marijuana would be, I think Profesco has every reason to believe what he said.why should he? he doesnt know how it was before it was illegal. i dont see anything wrong with times before it was illegal. if you can point out something, id like to hear it.

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 1:57 AM
but its the exact same analogy. im sure murderers ate pizza before. im sure people who did hard drugs ate pizza before. you cant say weed automatically leads to doing harder drugs.

Except for pizza and murder being entirely different from each other. If you had used murder and, say, killing domestic animals, or something, then they'd be pretty much equal analogies (but I'd bet that many murderers first kill something non-human, too).


more like hardly an illegal basis..

Eh, same difference.


.. so what does the weed impact besides the user?

People nearby getting high off of their smoke, crashing vehicles while they're high, stuff like that.


why should he? he doesnt know how it was before it was illegal. i dont see anything wrong with times before it was illegal. if you can point out something, id like to hear it.

He's basing it off of what roles cigarettes and alcohol play in our society. I think that's reasonable.

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 3:35 AM
Except for pizza and murder being entirely different from each other. If you had used murder and, say, killing domestic animals, or something, then they'd be pretty much equal analogies (but I'd bet that many murderers first kill something non-human, too).dude, its a logical fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html)
perhaps youll realize this sooner or later.


Eh, same difference.im sorry, but we dont make things illegal for the heck of it. if anything's illegal, theres a pretty good reason for it to be illegal. otherwise, if theres nothing wrong with something, it should be legal by default.


People nearby getting high off of their smoke, crashing vehicles while they're high, stuff like that.people getting high near the smoke? well im sure they wont if they arent all up on the weed user.

and more with that car crashing stuff? can you show me it in countries that make weed legal?


He's basing it off of what roles cigarettes and alcohol play in our society. I think that's reasonable.in that case, banning it is idiotic based on that alone because banning both of those substances is a disaster while weed is a much less drastic one.

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 3:59 AM
dude, its a logical fallacy.
perhaps youll realize this sooner or later.

Not if a study (http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/news-left.htm?aid=49) supports it.


im sorry, but we dont make things illegal for the heck of it. if anything's illegal, theres a pretty good reason for it to be illegal. otherwise, if theres nothing wrong with something, it should be legal by default.

And none of these really have anything to do with an individual's health.


people getting high near the smoke? well im sure they wont if they arent all up on the weed user.

and more with that car crashing stuff? can you show me it in countries that make weed legal?

How about if they smoke in a confined area, where someone couldn't get away easily?

Doesn't matter, driving is way more commonplace in the United States than pretty much any other country, especially the Netherlands.


in that case, banning it is idiotic based on that alone because banning both of those substances is a disaster while weed is a much less drastic one.

I would rather say that it is alcohol that is idiotically legal than marijuana that is idiotically illegal, considering that the only real reason alcohol is legal is because of the massive protesting that would occur were it to be otherwise.

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 4:06 AM
Not if a study (http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/news-left.htm?aid=49) supports it.studies (also common sense) shows that most people who also do hard drugs ate pizza first too.

again, it commits the fallacy no matter what you show me.


And none of these really have anything to do with an individual's health.the regular type of weed should be fine.. if not, more fine than alcohol at least.


How about if they smoke in a confined area, where someone couldn't get away easily?what? a closet? lets ban scissors now.


Doesn't matter, driving is way more commonplace in the United States than pretty much any other country, especially the Netherlands.now youre just ignoring the point. if thats the case then we should see plenty of these cases regardless of it being illegal.


I would rather say that it is alcohol that is idiotically legal than marijuana that is idiotically illegal, considering that the only real reason alcohol is legal is because of the massive protesting that would occur were it to be otherwise.actually alcohol is legal again because of the chaos that erupted from it being illegal.

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 4:19 AM
studies (also common sense) shows that most people who also do hard drugs ate pizza first too.

again, it commits the fallacy no matter what you show me.

Source.


the regular type of weed should be fine.. if not, more fine than alcohol at least.

Once again, an individual's health should not be a factor in whether something is legal or illegal.


what? a closet? lets ban scissors now.

Or a good-sized room would do it. Even a big room, or outside. I live with a marijuana-smoker, trust me; the stuff carries. Don't understand the scissors remark, though.


now youre just ignoring the point. if thats the case then we should see plenty of these cases regardless of it being illegal.

Where, in the United States or the Netherlands?


actually alcohol is legal again because of the chaos that erupted from it being illegal.

Which is what I said. You're casting doubt on your literacy, here.

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 4:34 AM
Source.source of what? pizza leading to harder drug use? well, what hard drug user didnt eat pizza first? who HASNT eaten pizza before? thats my point! thats what makes the reasoning invalid!


Once again, an individual's health should not be a factor in whether something is legal or illegal.if it shouldnt then why are you arguing from a health point?


Or a good-sized room would do it. Even a big room, or outside. I live with a marijuana-smoker, trust me; the stuff carries. Don't understand the scissors remark, though.ive never heard the case of breathing in it from afar makes somebody high.


Where, in the United States or the Netherlands?heck, anywhere. im desperate to find something like this.


Which is what I said. You're casting doubt on your literacy, here.no, you said it was due to protesting. 'horrible results' isnt the same as protesting.

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 5:29 AM
source of what? pizza leading to harder drug use? well, what hard drug user didnt eat pizza first? who HASNT eaten pizza before? thats my point! thats what makes the reasoning invalid!

I'll bet that this (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1273/1278029562_36d606bc3e.jpg?v=0) guy has never had pizza. Besides, if you're going to talk like this, no point can be made of anything.


if it shouldnt then why are you arguing from a health point?

People keep bringing them up.


ive never heard the case of breathing in it from afar makes somebody high.

Well, I have.


heck, anywhere. im desperate to find something like this.

I've already posted links pertaining to United States crash rates. As for the Netherlands, they pretty much just bike or use public transport.


no, you said it was due to protesting. 'horrible results' isnt the same as protesting.

Not a peaceable protest, but that doesn't really describe the anti-Prohibition movement.

Profesco
29th May 2008, 9:10 AM
do you even know how life was before it was illegal? *rolls eyes*

Okay, okay. Poor word choice. I should have said "simple" rather than "simpler." Life is simple with marijuana illegal, and there's no way legalizing it would make life any simpler.


Based upon the status of cigarettes and alcohol today, which are pretty equivalent to what legal marijuana would be, I think Profesco has every reason to believe what he said.

Thanks, GrizzlyB. But I should have made a better word choice. Everything you've said since, however, was good for my point! ^_^

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 12:01 PM
I'll bet that this (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1273/1278029562_36d606bc3e.jpg?v=0) guy has never had pizza. Besides, if you're going to talk like this, no point can be made of anything.ill also bet plenty of people who take hard drugs never used pot. whats your point? youre just making yourself look worse: the point of saying all this is that the argument is invalid.


Well, I have.'i do i do!' isnt good enough evidence. show me a source that says 'people get high off of second-hand weed smoke' and id like the distance if there is such a thing.


I've already posted links pertaining to United States crash rates. As for the Netherlands, they pretty much just bike or use public transport.crash rates? or 'weed-driving rates'?


Not a peaceable protest, but that doesn't really describe the anti-Prohibition movement.youre still ignoring the fact that it was a disaster.


Okay, okay. Poor word choice. I should have said "simple" rather than "simpler." Life is simple with marijuana illegal, and there's no way legalizing it would make life any simpler.that doesnt change your statement at all. how do you know it was simpler? why is it simpler? because its the way its always been? i find it more complicated personally and ive already laid out why. its your turn.

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 12:32 PM
ill also bet plenty of people who take hard drugs never used pot. whats your point? youre just making yourself look worse: the point of saying all this is that the argument is invalid.

This (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/12/2134?submit.y=20&submit.x=146&gca=163%2F12%2F2134&submit=sendit&) says that 1-4% of hard drug users didn't use marijuana before they used hard drugs. That's not significant; there is a correlation. My apologies if you're too bull-headed to accept that.


'i do i do!' isnt good enough evidence. show me a source that says 'people get high off of second-hand weed smoke' and id like the distance if there is such a thing.

So what makes this any more credible?

ive never heard the case of breathing in it from afar makes somebody high.


crash rates? or 'weed-driving rates'?

Both.


youre still ignoring the fact that it was a disaster.

Yes, because you know that I think non-peaceable protests are all sunshine and flowers, right?

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 1:45 PM
This (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/12/2134?submit.y=20&submit.x=146&gca=163%2F12%2F2134&submit=sendit&) says that 1-4% of hard drug users didn't use marijuana before they used hard drugs. That's not significant; there is a correlation. My apologies if you're too bull-headed to accept that.my apologies if youre too bull-headed to realize a fallacy is a fallacy. i'm sure 99% of all murderers ate pizza first.

again, youre going to have to make a stronger case for this. are all people fat because they ate pizza first? or is it much bigger than that?


So what makes this any more credible?why do i need credibility? im not making any claims at all. im just asking you to verify yours.


Both.okay. i searched the thread. couldnt find anything. id like your source again.


Yes, because you know that I think non-peaceable protests are all sunshine and flowers, right?well, if you call al capone a protest...

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 8:30 PM
my apologies if youre too bull-headed to realize a fallacy is a fallacy. i'm sure 99% of all murderers ate pizza first.

again, youre going to have to make a stronger case for this. are all people fat because they ate pizza first? or is it much bigger than that?

You're the one making unvalidated pizza-eating-related claims, here. How about you make any sort of case for your point?


why do i need credibility? im not making any claims at all. im just asking you to verify yours.

Both of our statements had the same level of credibility. I don't understand where you get off finding a problem with mine.


okay. i searched the thread. couldnt find anything. id like your source again.

¯\(º_o)/¯ (http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/publications-articles/cannabis-marijuana-plus-alcohol-driving-performance-study.htm)


well, if you call al capone a protest...

Looking back, I used protest in a future sense.

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 9:04 PM
You're the one making unvalidated pizza-eating-related claims, here. How about you make any sort of case for your point?my point is supposed to demonstrate an invalid case; its no different than yours. just because something comes before something doesnt mean its automatically the cause.


Both of our statements had the same level of credibility. I don't understand where you get off finding a problem with mine.oh really? my statement is that you cant 'get high' from second-hand weed. if you cannot, then theres no reason to believe in YOUR claim. my claim is the default one because there is no such case.


¯\(º_o)/¯[ (http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/publications-articles/cannabis-marijuana-plus-alcohol-driving-performance-study.htm)
quite a lot of information in this source. however, it only says that theres an effect; well, goodie, theres an effect on driving skills while having a man scream in your ear. all i wanted were accidents DUE to weed or whatever. if its in the source, id like it quoted.


Looking back, I used protest in a future sense.look, the point is, alcohol was a disaster.

GrizzlyB
29th May 2008, 9:17 PM
my point is supposed to demonstrate an invalid case; its no different than yours. just because something comes before something doesnt mean its automatically the cause.

Then show me that the case is invalid.


oh really? my statement is that you cant 'get high' from second-hand weed. if you cannot, then theres no reason to believe in YOUR claim. my claim is the default one because there is no such case.

Okay, then this (http://teenadvice.about.com/od/factsheetsforteens/a/10thingspot.htm) says you can.





Williams et al. in a study involving 440 cases, demonstrated as in the above studies that alcohol had a higher culpability ratio compared with culpable drug-free drivers (92% vs 71%). However, those drivers in whom only cannabis was detected were less likely to be responsible for the crashes (53% vs 71%).
A pretty significant rate for an illegal drug.


look, the point is, alcohol was a disaster.

Which is the reason I said that it is legal.

GhostAnime
29th May 2008, 9:36 PM
Then show me that the case is invalid.WTF? i just did by giving you the fallacy and the analogy.


Okay, then this (http://teenadvice.about.com/od/factsheetsforteens/a/10thingspot.htm) says you can.good, good. ive researched on it for a few minutes and some people are apparently saying that its "contact high"; and if theres enough smoke around with you being close enough, you feel the effects.

however the chances of being enclosed with it beyond your free will are quite slim. only case i can think of is at home and well.. theyll already smoke weed at home anyway.


A pretty significant rate for an illegal drug.well now isnt that something? weed less dangerous than alcohol on the road? .. though 440 people isnt exactly a good sample but i suppose i can work with it.

well, in that case, im against banning alcohol (which is more dangerous) and im against banning drugs. i still believe theres more good out of unbanning it than banning it.


Which is the reason I said that it is legal.and im saying weed falls in the same category albeit less drastic.

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 6:45 AM
WTF? i just did by giving you the fallacy and the analogy.

That is assuming that all murderers have eaten pizza before. Besides, studies specifically remove variables other than what they are testing, so any proper experiment should leave no room for doubt on what caused the results.


and im saying weed falls in the same category albeit less drastic.

And that disparity between them is why alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.

Just a side note on the public smoking bit: people often don't follow smoking regulations currently (which reminds me of a rather amusing anecdote of my friend smoking in line at an amusement park with disagreeable results, but I digress), and there's not a whole lot we can do about that. But how about we don't worry about that here (isn't it pretty much exactly the smoking thread)?

TrueCharizard
30th May 2008, 10:45 AM
People who use hard drugs are also likely to have drank alcohol Grizzly. That's a correlation is it not? Are you saying drinking is a gateway onto hard drugs as well?

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 10:55 AM
People who use hard drugs are also likely to have drank alcohol Grizzly. That's a correlation is it not? Are you saying drinking is a gateway onto hard drugs as well?

Yes. I hope you're not getting the impression that I'm favoring alcohol over marijuana; I'm not. If it were my decision, and one of them had to be legal, and the other illegal, disregarding societal repercussions, I would legalize marijuana and ban alcohol. But, as it stands, that's not plausible, and I would ultimately prefer both to be illegal. Thing is, marijuana already is, so I'm going to defend that.

GhostAnime
30th May 2008, 11:17 AM
That is assuming that all murderers have eaten pizza before. Besides, studies specifically remove variables other than what they are testing, so any proper experiment should leave no room for doubt on what caused the results.well, im pretty sure MOST people in america have eaten pizza before they murdered somebody. if you seriously doubt that, then switch pizza with anything else.

and removing the variables wont help much either.

phun fact: most rapists love porn. whoa stop the presses porn causes rape! banning porn creates less rapists!

or rather sexually frustrated people (perhaps the cause?) watch porn the most? banning porn doesnt make them any less sexually frustrated.

get the idea yet? that there is likely something bigger than just one thing preceding it?




And that disparity between them is why alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.so whats wrong with making marijuana legal since theyve done the same thing? thats kinda unfair, dont you think?


Just a side note on the public smoking bit: people often don't follow smoking regulations currently (which reminds me of a rather amusing anecdote of my friend smoking in line at an amusement park with disagreeable results, but I digress), and there's not a whole lot we can do about that. But how about we don't worry about that here (isn't it pretty much exactly the smoking thread)?this isnt an argument, i hope.

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 11:28 AM
well, im pretty sure MOST people in america have eaten pizza before they murdered somebody. if you seriously doubt that, then switch pizza with anything else.

and removing the variables wont help much either.

Well, in that case, look for more specific behaviors or activities. Even if there aren't any, surely there are less general ones than pizza.

And why won't removing variables help? If none of the subjects have pizza, that can be deducted as not being a factor in murderous actions.


so whats wrong with making marijuana legal since theyve done the same thing? thats kinda unfair, dont you think?

No. Marijuana hasn't had nearly the negative impact alcohol did when it was illegal.


this isnt an argument, i hope.

No.

GhostAnime
30th May 2008, 11:31 AM
And why won't removing variables help? If none of the subjects have pizza, that can be deducted as not being a factor in murderous actions.look at my porn example. i just demonstrated how removing the variable isnt enough. heres another:

most people who have AIDS like porn! porn is the cause!

example: or rather.. most people who have AIDS just like sex? porn doesnt even enter the equation then.


No. Marijuana hasn't had nearly the negative impact alcohol did when it was illegal.but you admit that it does have a negative impact.

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 11:47 AM
look at my porn example. i just demonstrated how removing the variable isnt enough. heres another:

But you can deduct whether it is not the cause or not. If you do an experiment with two groups, one of which has pizza, the other of which does not, and they develop equal murderous tendencies, you can deduct that pizza is not a factor in developing murderous behavior.


most people who have AIDS like porn! porn is the cause!

Actually, most of the AIDS population of the world lives in undeveloped regions of Africa, where I do not believe pornography is a commonplace vocation. But I digress again.


but you admit that it does have a negative impact.

Every choice comes with consequences, regardless of which option you choose. I believe that the positive consequences of legalizing marijuana are less than those of keeping it illegal. And I think most will agree that the negative consequences of making alcohol illegal exceed those of illegal marijuana.

GhostAnime
30th May 2008, 12:11 PM
But you can deduct whether it is not the cause or not. If you do an experiment with two groups, one of which has pizza, the other of which does not, and they develop equal murderous tendencies, you can deduct that pizza is not a factor in developing murderous behavior.and again, this is not accurate enough. what if sexually frustrated people just had a common liking for porn? porn wouldnt be the cause then; it would just be a common denominator.


Actually, most of the AIDS population of the world lives in undeveloped regions of Africa, where I do not believe pornography is a commonplace vocation. But I digress again.look at switzerland's porn laws and then their AIDS rate. porn is not the cause of AIDS.

like i said, people who have AIDS could possibly just like sex or have some reason not to use protection (hey, those underdeveloped countries just might be under catholic rule!). porn has nothing to do with any of it. finding a common denominator doesnt mean the common denominator is the cause of it. the link is more important than 'all kids who play video games become murderers'.


Every choice comes with consequences, regardless of which option you choose. I believe that the positive consequences of legalizing marijuana are less than those of keeping it illegal. And I think most will agree that the negative consequences of making alcohol illegal exceed those of illegal marijuana.so what are the goods that comes out of making it illegal?

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 8:36 PM
and again, this is not accurate enough. what if sexually frustrated people just had a common liking for porn? porn wouldnt be the cause then; it would just be a common denominator.

Then, if you test one group with porn, and one group without porn, and they demonstrated the same... tendencies, then you can eliminate it as a cause.


look at switzerland's porn laws and then their AIDS rate. porn is not the cause of AIDS.

Which is very much what I said.


so what are the goods that comes out of making it illegal?

You have less people using something that is generally perceived to have negative effects, for one thing.

GhostAnime
30th May 2008, 8:45 PM
Then, if you test one group with porn, and one group without porn, and they demonstrated the same... tendencies, then you can eliminate it as a cause.why would you need to do this? if sexual frustration was the cause, then porn has nothing to do with it. it is automatically eliminated if it has no relation to the actual reason.


You have less people using something that is generally perceived to have negative effects, for one thing.ban butter? ban junk food? ban alcohol?

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 9:39 PM
why would you need to do this? if sexual frustration was the cause, then porn has nothing to do with it. it is automatically eliminated if it has no relation to the actual reason.

But you don't know that until you actually check. What if traces of cyanide molecules in tomatoes, when mixed with fermenting agents in cheese, when consumed, triggered chemical releases in certain individuals which then caused murderous tendencies to develop? That apparently has no relation, but it's the cause. Likewise, in my prior example, testing two groups, one with porn, one without, and coming up with the same tendencies proves that porn is NOT a factor.


ban butter? ban junk food? ban alcohol?

No. No. Yes, in theory. Butter and junk food have negative effects solely related to one's health, and as I've said before, that should be no reason in making or abolishing laws. And, alcohol, as I've said, is probably worse than marijuana and really should be banned.

GhostAnime
30th May 2008, 10:32 PM
But you don't know that until you actually check. What if traces of cyanide molecules in tomatoes, when mixed with fermenting agents in cheese, when consumed, triggered chemical releases in certain individuals which then caused murderous tendencies to develop? That apparently has no relation, but it's the cause. Likewise, in my prior example, testing two groups, one with porn, one without, and coming up with the same tendencies proves that porn is NOT a factor.are you serious? you really need to test two type of rapists who ate pizza and ones who didnt? do you have any common sense at all?

whether you list a plausible conclusion is irrelevant; the conclusion me be true but reasoning can still be invalid. your reasoning is invalid no matter how you look at it. unless you can point out some kind of link between something as silly as that, theres no reason to test it without the variable.

now, the better way to prove tomatoes do that is to actually first find the scientific link, THEN you may have a reason to test.


No. No. Yes, in theory. Butter and junk food have negative effects solely related to one's health, and as I've said before, that should be no reason in making or abolishing laws. And, alcohol, as I've said, is probably worse than marijuana and really should be banned.and marijuana (the plant) has slow effects just like alcohol.

so.. whats the difference?

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 10:42 PM
are you serious? you really need to test two type of rapists who ate pizza and ones who didnt? do you have any common sense at all?

whether you list a plausible conclusion is irrelevant; the conclusion me be true but reasoning can still be invalid. your reasoning is invalid no matter how you look at it. unless you can point out some kind of link between something as silly as that, theres no reason to test it without the variable.

now, the better way to prove tomatoes do that is to actually first find the scientific link, THEN you may have a reason to test.

No, and yes.

Since the scientific process apparently leaves a lingering logical fallacy, could you give me an example of something that does not? Otherwise, it's pointless to try and argue about anything at all.


and marijuana (the plant) has slow effects just like alcohol.

so.. whats the difference?

People like alcohol more, apparently.

GhostAnime
30th May 2008, 10:50 PM
Since the scientific process apparently leaves a lingering logical fallacy, could you give me an example of something that does not? Otherwise, it's pointless to try and argue about anything at all.the scientific method isnt fallacious; the REASONING you use is. sure, you could use the scientific method to test if porn is the cause of AIDS. then you get most people having AIDS also being a fan of porn. this is the scientific method part.

the reasoning part is suggesting that porn is the cause of AIDS.


People like alcohol more, apparently.doesnt mean weed should stay banned.

Silver83
30th May 2008, 10:54 PM
yes it should. It's nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol...when have you seen a stoned person staggering around picking fights for no reason? How many people die every year from alcohol or because or someone drinking alcohol(road accidents, violence etc) now compare that with the amount that die from cannabis. Also cannabis has been proven to relieve pain so should be available for ALL patients who do not respond to todays pain killers. One last point, like tobacco (which is legal funnily enough...do rich corporations and governments come to mind there?) cannabis is a natural substance that grows in the ground, it's a less addictive and less dangerous drug than tobacco so why are people being criminalised for smoking one and not another?? There are far worse things out there!!

Silver83
30th May 2008, 10:55 PM
yes it should. It's nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol...when have you seen a stoned person staggering around picking fights for no reason? How many people die every year from alcohol or because or someone drinking alcohol(road accidents, violence etc) now compare that with the amount that die from cannabis. Also cannabis has been proven to relieve pain so should be available for ALL patients who do not respond to todays pain killers. One last point, like tobacco (which is legal funnily enough...do rich corporations and governments come to mind there?) cannabis is a natural substance that grows in the ground, it's a less addictive and less dangerous drug than tobacco so why are people being criminalised for smoking one and not another?? There are far worse things out there!!

GrizzlyB
30th May 2008, 11:13 PM
the scientific method isnt fallacious; the REASONING you use is. sure, you could use the scientific method to test if porn is the cause of AIDS. then you get most people having AIDS also being a fan of porn. this is the scientific method part.

the reasoning part is suggesting that porn is the cause of AIDS.

First off, like I said, AIDS is by far most predominant in poor, undeveloped parts of Africa. Second, observing that most people who have AIDS like pornography (assuming that were true) is not testing it at all in the least, and is therefore not the scientific process, a logical fallacy, and not what I've said or shown at all.


doesnt mean weed should stay banned.

No, but it's why alcohol isn't.

GhostAnime
31st May 2008, 12:14 AM
First off, like I said, AIDS is by far most predominant in poor, undeveloped parts of Africa. Second, observing that most people who have AIDS like pornography (assuming that were true) is not testing it at all in the least, and is therefore not the scientific process, a logical fallacy, and not what I've said or shown at all.

scientific method is testing AIDS victims that watched porn first and AIDS victims that didnt watch porn.

if most AIDS victims watched porn first, then yeah, there is a relationship between porn and AIDS.

however, that doesnt mean porn is the cause. this is where reasoning applies.

GrizzlyB
31st May 2008, 1:11 AM
scientific method is testing AIDS victims that watched porn first and AIDS victims that didnt watch porn.

if most AIDS victims watched porn first, then yeah, there is a relationship between porn and AIDS.

It would be studying two groups of people, the only difference between them being that one watches pornography while the other does not. Such an experiment probably would not demonstrate any correlation between the two.

GhostAnime
31st May 2008, 1:38 AM
exactly! thats why 'weed leads people into harder drugs' cant really be taken seriously.

GrizzlyB
31st May 2008, 1:52 AM
If it's the only difference between the two, it can. Of course, this would require a very thorough study, which may not even be entirely possible to conduct.

Well, I kinda think we've gotten as far along as we will we each other, wouldn't you agree?

ursaloom
31st May 2008, 7:48 AM
mariuhana can be used medically, saw it on simpsons. simpsons is normally based on stuff irl. should be you could get it with recepts.

GhostAnime
31st May 2008, 10:57 AM
well did i at least weaken your stance?

GrizzlyB
31st May 2008, 8:55 PM
well did i at least weaken your stance?

I don't know. I think I've definitely learned a few things here, though, even unrelated to marijuana.

Gianni
5th June 2008, 3:15 AM
The ignorance is hurting my stomach I have to respond, I dont know who said this but weed if legalized would become cheaper almost immediately and many gangs would loose profits and have to get real jobs or start trafficking something else illegal like meth or coke.

Taxes are not going to be expensive as the artificially inflated black market, by a long shot.

Do you know you can grow pounds of the stuff for next to one paychecks investment, then those assholes sell it 1000% profit. Do the math, I would rather want my money going to legitimate business than a lawless street dealer.

Marijuana is a harmless intoxicant as much as some of you try and point out its negatives. Some of you have said that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol and cigs because its a "hallucinogen". What does that mean? Have you tried marijuana or mushrooms? there is a huge freaking difference. Alcohol is a straight judgment inhibitor yet marijuana is more dangerous? MDMA is not nearly as dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, whoever said that.

I cant verify for sure but I remember hearing it but:
tobacco deaths: like 400,000 and other illnesses related to smoking
alcohol deaths: 50,000-150,000 driving, and diseases included
total all illicit drug use: 17,000
marijuana: 0

The dangerousness (risks involved) are not even close. The risks of marijuana and mental illness are nill to zero. Those studies people spout about 40% mental illness increase is utter BS. Mental illness as defined by those doing the studies ( as paid for by our tax dollars) any behavior that does not benefit the system. The government would not pay for studies that do not prove them right. Meta-studies are complete BS as well. A meta study is a bunch of other studies put together. So if you have a bunch of ******** studies and you put them together, what do yo get?

A ******** conclusion

The same laws that apply to alcohol consumption would be applied to marijuana consumption. Driving you would get a DUI, public intoxication would be ticket. Public intoxication of marijuana is hard to spot some this would be low. And for the first time in many years marijuana would not be sold to minors. This does not mean however those kids wont get marijuana it just means it will be much harder.

I know from personal experience that it is much easier for a minor to get pot than alcohol, not to mention much less risky.

Be pro-marijuana prohibition means that you think its criminally wrong for a person to get intoxicated on certain substance but not others. Hypocrisy and discrimination in its purest form. Being intoxicated on anything does not violate the rights of others unless the person is driving or amongst public. That last part means on the street, not in bars designed for intoxicant ingestion such as a bar or in netherlands the coffee shops.

the last thing is the gateway theory. Its a theory, it has not been proven. Heres how I personally see it
those who ride motor bikes usually started with riding a conventional bicycle, but that does not mean that all conventional bicycle riders will ride motor bikes. Its a problem with correlation and causality.

If weed was legalized I am pretty sure advertising would be banned as well, so there would be no billboards condoning drug use.

Eclipse
5th June 2008, 4:13 AM
It doesn't realy matter becuase people will use it anyway. If it was legalized, perhaps all the murders that happen involving it would be reduced, however.

Rave
7th June 2008, 7:59 AM
Seeing that its come to my attention that there are 3 threads about drug legalization here, we're going to stick with the drug legalization thread.