[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"] $$$Infinite-Zr0Not really a valid reason. How is that not a valid reason? The government is $10trillion in debt. Selling people out for bucks is never valid. And I doubt weed would be a drop in the bucket. Anyway, I don't care about money at all.
Who else is optimistic that marijuana prohibition could end by 2011?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"][QUOTE="DjCristii"]weed is still harmful, why make it legal?MoonMarvel$$$ Not really a valid reason. The government needs money. Taxing marijuana could help increase revenue.
[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"] $$$remmbermytitansNot really a valid reason. The government needs money. Taxing marijuana could help increase revenue. At the expense of the peoples health, not valid.
[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"][QUOTE="MoonMarvel"] Not really a valid reason.MoonMarvelThe government needs money. Taxing marijuana could help increase revenue. At the expense of the peoples health, not valid. They let peope smoke tobacco.
[QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"][QUOTE="MoonMarvel"] Not really a valid reason.MoonMarvelHow is that not a valid reason? The government is $10trillion in debt. Selling people out for bucks is never valid. And I doubt weed would be a drop in the bucket. Anyway, I don't care about money at all.
Doesn't need to be "valid" to make money.(w.e. your definition of valid means anyway)
And I'm not saying that weed is going to be the mircale cure for America's money woes, but it would indeed bring more money into the government.
And also, no offence, it's not about you. It's about legalizing marijuana, and a reason why the government would consider it.
[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="remmbermytitans"] The government needs money. Taxing marijuana could help increase revenue.remmbermytitansAt the expense of the peoples health, not valid. They let peope smoke tobacco. Only because the industry has them in a vice grip and at first tobacco was seen as harmless. They have been trying to bankrupt them for years.
Selling people out for bucks is never valid. And I doubt weed would be a drop in the bucket. Anyway, I don't care about money at all.[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"] How is that not a valid reason? The government is $10trillion in debt.Infinite-Zr0
Doesn't need to be "valid" to make money.(w.e. your definition of valid means anyway)
And I'm not saying that weed is going to be the mircale cure for America's money woes, but it would indeed bring more money into the government.
And also, no offence, it's not about you. It's about legalizing marijuana, and a reason why the government would consider it.
And I am stating I don't care about money so obviously I will not agree this is a valid reason and IMO the reasons behind making something legal needs to be valid.
Do I think cannabis prohibition will end by 2011? No chance in hell, but as an avid follower of the decriminalization movement and fledgling activist and analyst of the political community, I can optimistically say we are making real progress, and I will tell you why very soon.
As far as all drugs being federally regulated, it's a good thought and there are potential merits, but there are also potential downsides that might overshadow those merits. At any rate, cannabis does NOT belong in the same category as other drugs. First off, go down the list of schedule I drugs and see hoe many you recognize besides cannabis (marijuana). I saw two street drugs on there besides cannabis, mescaline and peyote. Second, the definition of a schedule I drug is as follows:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Cannabis is:
(A) Is proven to have no physically addivtive substances.
(B) Is used to treat symptoms for AIDS, cancer, anorexia, nausea, asthma, glaucoma, general pain, Alzheimer's, OCD, Tourette, prevention of heart disease, and seizure prevention.
(C) Has never been proven to cause a single death in its entire history, dating back as far as modern records go and showing popular use in some ancient societies. Has also been proven to not cause bronchitis or emphysema, and has not been proven to cause lung cancer in any clinical trial that adhered to strict testing procedure.
Now, schedule II drugs, by definition:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
and drugs that are included in schedule II (less dangerous than shcedule I according to the DEA) are, cocaine,ritalin, opium, methadone, oxycodone, and morphine. Most are street drugs or have some street value, all ahve been proven to deteriorate certain parts of the body during addiction, and all have been proven to be physically addictive, yet somehow they are all more dangerous than cannabis.
Is there an argument that regulation could lead to greater transparency and control? Yes, but it is not proven. With cannabis, however, there are many more arguments for legalization than just that, and a lot better quality, too. As a cannabis activist, lumping cannabis in with other drugs when it is so much less harmful and unpredictable hurts our position more than anything, especially when we're just starting to gain ground, but still in the fight of our lives against mislead conservative zealots and a completely misinformed society. We have so much more work to do just to pull ths shroud back on all the lies that have permeated our society since the days of Henry Anslinger, William Randolph Hearst, and a struggling DuPont corporation that if we get sidetracked trying to change over-arching drug policy we'll never make any progress.
Does it matter? Yes, it matters. For one, there's a drug war going on in border towns across Mexico. Drug officials in this country say the violence has to stop, but they have no idea how. Simply put, running drugs is a profitable business. Go back to the days of alcohol prohibition and the people who were benefitting the msot were the gangsters. People still drank, only instead of being a legitimate and controlled business it was forced underground and continued on unabated. Bush Jr. promised to crack down on cannabis when he took office, and crack down he did. He let the DEA conduct raids on legal cannabis distributers in California and seize their cannabis even though Californis state law said that they were legally authorized to sell it. Cannabis smoking went up during the Bush administration. So, not only did tighter enforcement fail to curb smoking, not only did more teens use the drug on a regular basis, but they also were increasingly driven underground because of the DEA shutting down legal distributers, which brings me to my next point.
Cannabis is a gateway drug, right? My mother once said that cannabis gets you aquainted with drug culture because of the methodical way you go about preparing it. She said this as she ground down some beans, meticulously measured them out into a filter, measured some water into a container, and set a machine to boil water and filter it through the grounds. She takes a press to work every day so that even boiling the water is out of the hands of a machine and one more methodical step to creating a substance which creates physical dependence and is proven to put users more at risk for health conditions than cannabis. When I was in my first apartment I would make drinks a number of ways, using strainers, mixers, shakers, blenders, you name it. I put salt and sugar on the rims, I mixed juices, sodas, and other things with the alcohol, I even strained and prepared fruit and served it with the alcohol in different ways. If that's not methodical preparation of a drug, I don't know what is. No to mention, this particular drug is known to be a root cause in almost 13,000 fatal automobile accidents in 2007, and it's legal. Instances of fatal automobile accidents where the driver was using cannabis exclusively: 0.
We live in a drug culture. We use drugs to stimulate us in the morning, we use drugs to keep ourselves focused during the day, we use drugs to help us balance our emotions, we use drugs to get our sex drive going, and we use drugs to help us sleep. We use them in every which way, we pop pills, filter water over coffee, mix drinks roll tobacco cigarettes, chew tobacco, smoke tobacco out of a bong, and sometimes we straight drink beer right out of a bottle. Liqour and tobacco pull in billions each year, and each is proven to be more harmful by leaps and bounds than cannabis. They are also associated with major milestones in our lives. Turn 16, learn to drive. Turn 18, learn to smoke, turn 21, learn to drink. Drugs are so ingrained in our habits and our society that singling out cannabis as the one drug that perpetuates drug culture is hypocritical to the nth degree.
Let's look at another aspect of gateway theory. The dominating logic behind this theory is that because they are buying drugs from shady illegal dealers, young teenagers might be exposed to harder drugs by the ones doing the selling.Sooooo...making the drugs legally available will continue the drug's status as a gateway drug how? Illegal dealers want to make money, period. They have a plethora of drugs,all more physically addictive and harmful than cannabis. They also cost more. Greater cost, greater profit, that dealer wants to sell and they do not care what they sell or who they sell it to, as long as they don't get caught. Legal cannabis distribution is out in the open, they are licensed to sell cannabis and cannabis paraphenalia, and they are subject to regular inspections the same way resaurants are to health inspections. Everything is out in the open, no one is sold to without a license to buy, and there are no hard drugs that are being pushed on anybody. This completely undermines gateway theory, which relies on incomplete data in the first place.
[QUOTE="rob1101"][QUOTE="supa_badman"] Well apparently not.supa_badmanThis one is more recentThis one even more so any difference? i guess we'll never know. scientists keep coming back at eachother constantly. in the lawful sense marijuana would be more dangerous considering its illegal. That article is not more recent, and what is doctor ndtv? Do you know why marijuana is illegal? I know this is a blog but it is still a good read http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com
I'd love to see marijuana legalized. It be legalized and have the exact same rules as alcohol. You shouldn't be able to drive under too much of an influence of it (or actively smoking while driving), employers should still be able to use it against you (hey, an employer wouldn't want you coming in drunk, either), among other rules.
The tax revenue opprotunities are much too great to pass it up for too long.
People already use it so much you'd think it's legal.
[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"][QUOTE="pis3rch"] It matters to all of the innocent, nonviolent users who could potentially be charged as criminals just for using it. I would say that yeah, it matters. pis3rch
legalization is not such a simple matter as signing a paper and say ok you can smoke now. you cant just legalize something you have no control over. right now the drug trade is run by gangs and other often times violent organizations. and taxing the hell out of weed wont solve anything. as then a black market is then created and people will go right back to the original source. which doesnt solve many problems. not to mention many of these gangs(also talking cross boarder here not just local.) will then seek other ways to make money. be that heavier drugs or otherwise. not to mention what do you do with all those people who have been jailed on pot charges?
to the one who said all drugs should be legalized? really? are you serious? have you seen what other drugs do? ever seen someone on meth? or heroin? yeah probly not. other wise you wouldnt be so quick to say such a thing. and to say that its our bodies we should be able to do what we want? i fully agree, if this was anarchy (im quite for anarchy of sorts). but we dont live in anarchy we live in a cooperative society and having useless drug addicts does not promote the betterment of said society.
The prohibition of marijuana is what created the black market in the first place. Did you ever study the Prohibition of the 1920's? IT FAILED. People wanted to drink, and criminals rose to power as the source of much coveted booze. That's what we have today with marijuana. People want to smoke, and will always want to smoke, so they are going to get marijuana. I think that they would prefer to get it from a regulated coffeshop/dispensary (like in Amsterdam or California) than to buy it from some dealer who supports the violent Mexican cartels.and not once in my post did i ever EVER say i didnt want it legal. thanks for forming my opinion for me. I do want pot to be legal. i merely pointed out the obvious issues that come with it. and the majority of people seem to just think its a simple as signing a paper. when its not. next time ask what my actual stance is before assuming it.
Anyone seen Idiocracy?
That's going to happen if they legalize it.
:lol: Hey, that just means it will be easier for me to take over the world. :PAnyone seen Idiocracy?
That's going to happen if they legalize it.Bioshockraptor
There is no good reason, NO GOOD REASON, why marijuana should be illegal.
So, back to the point that legalization makes a difference. The first evidence to that point is that criminalization actually perpetuates gateway behavior by putting more impressionable people in contact with dealers who are trying to sell them hard drugs instead of legal dealers who will sell pot only, and even then only if they meet age requirements necessary to attain a license to buy. It also takes money away from the drug lords. Right now, 60% of the income of violent drug traffickers in Mexico comes from cannabis. If you make cannabis legal on a national level that is going to take a significant chunk out of their income and put it back into the American economy.
Speaking of money, just by ending enforcement of prohibition laws and cutting back spending in that area we could save millions if not billions of dollars in spending. If we legalized and taxed cannabis the income generated JUST by taxation is over $12 billion. There are 14.6 million cannabis users in the U.S. today, a number which could see a significant jump if it were legalized. A conservative estimate for the cost of one gram is $10. a typical joint is 0.7 grams. If those 14.6 million people (conservative number) bought enough weed to smoke two joints a day for a year(conservative amount) at $10 a gram (conservative number) and an 8% tax (decent estimation), then you do the math. 14.6 mil x 1.4 grams (2 joints of 0.7 grams) x $10 per gram x 365 days a year = an annual spending of $74,606,000,000 per year. 8% of that is almost 6 billion dollars in tax revenue alone based on conservative estimates and not even counting the money gained through not enforcing prohibition. Most estimates on the economic gain from ending prohibition are between ten and forty billion dollars on the very high end, counting tax revenue and the money gained from decreased spending on enforcement. That means the economic windfall could be greater than the amount of money Bernie Madoff swindled in his ponzie scheme. Look at how our enforcement is balanced:86% of all drug seizures in the U.S. in 05 were of cannabis. Cannabis seizures have been steadily increasing since 1990 while heroine seizures have been declining since 2002 and cocaine seizures since 1999. Oh yeah, and did I mention the cost of prosecuting and jailing non-violent users for possession, not to mention the moral implication of jailing them for privately using a substance that is less harmful than the two most popular legal drugs in the country? Would you agree with an alcohol prohibition, or a tobacco one? Then why would you agree with a cannabis one?
And how does it help the economy in other ways? You create jobs in openings in the field of research, now that strict limtations on research are dropped. You create drugs in distributers and shops. You create jobs especially in cultivation. Cannabis is a plant that can be grown under almost any conditions, unlike soy and corn. It actually enriches the soil you grow it in and leaves it prime for cultivation when other crops would leave it barren and in need of timely methods of cultivation, tiem that cannabis can spend growing. Cannabis grows more efficiently than most other plants known to man. It has a yield of three to six tons per acre and a relatively short growing season, making it one of the best plants to grow agriculturally. Not only can the cannabis be shipped to legal distributers, but the hemp can be shipped off to be processed into affordable yet durable clothing, environmentally-friendly paper, enviro-friendly building materials, enviro-friendly use in the manufacture of oils and plastics, and an environment-friendly, 100% renewable source of fuel and power. it is an all-around economic boon.
Next, I'll touch on why it's illegal right now and why it continues to be illegal. In the 1930's, in the midst of the depression, a man namedHarry Anslinger was head of the DEA (I typed the worng name before, I apologise, and sadly I am not high right now), and his department was bleeding money. He got on the alcohol prohibition bandwagon earlier and managed to rally people behind that, and then turned to cannabis as a source of money for his department in order to fight this drug. He first decided to rename cannabis in an effort to associate the drug with the Latino population and draw on negative sterotypes about them. The name he came up with, marijuana, a word for inebriation from an ancient Portugese dialect. He then moved on to propaganda, claiming that cannabis made people lose their minds, lose control of their sexual inhibitions, and cause suicide, among other things. He made films, wrote articles, and spread nonsense that was based on absolutely no physical evidence, nonsense that has since been refuted by studies conducted under scientifically objective conditions.
Of course, he wasn't alone. The DuPont corporation was suffering from low textile sales that threatened the corporation's profitability. They lobbied against cannabis and helped to fund Anslinger. Another ally he had was the famous newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst. Hearst owned extensive interests in the lumber industry, and felt threatened by the possibility of hemp paper undercutting his interests. Fast forward ahead to modern times and see who spends the most money lobbying against cannabis. Oil companies and energy companies who are threatened by hemp's usefulness to their repsective industries. Tobacco companies and liquor companies who don't want to lose sales. You know that film Reefer Madness, that piece of propaganda that has since turned into a self-parody? The Budweiser Corporation helped to fund it. Cannabis is useful beyond imagination adn that makes it a detrement to business, that's why it's illegal.
Of course, there has never been a shortage of crusaders against pot based on values alone. The problem is that they're manipulated into believing these lies. They buy into the propaganda because it's easy to buy into, and suddenly it's a matter of it infecting youth or being sacreligious. If they would just look at the facts, look at the detrement cannabis does as compared to alcohol and tobacco, look at the economic boon that could be gained from cannabis, look at its diverse range of uses and applications, and look at how legalization could make the drug much more beneficial to the community rather than the drug dealers they would see that it's not values they've been crusading for this whole time, but the fraudulent control of a drug that threatens major corporations' profitability.
Ummmm....You do know Tabacco was seen as harmless not that long ago right? So you might not want to use that one.marijuana doesnt have harmful man made chemicals in it :roll: yea right now it doesnt, but if it was legalized, it would[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Risitance"]
If acohol and tobacco is legal so should Marijuana.
-xPANICx-
[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Risitance"]
If acohol and tobacco is legal so should Marijuana.
Ummmm....You do know Tabacco was seen as harmless not that long ago right? So you might not want to use that one.marijuana doesnt have harmful man made chemicals in it :roll: Tobacco doesn't need chemicals to cause cancer. :roll:[QUOTE="-xPANICx-"]marijuana doesnt have harmful man made chemicals in it :roll: Tobacco doesn't need chemicals to cause cancer. :roll: ok so we should not legalize marijuana because tobacco was thought to be safe and causes cancer, makes perfect sense.....[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"] Ummmm....You do know Tabacco was seen as harmless not that long ago right? So you might not want to use that one.MoonMarvel
[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="-xPANICx-"]marijuana doesnt have harmful man made chemicals in it :roll:Tobacco doesn't need chemicals to cause cancer. :roll: ok so we should not legalize marijuana because tobacco was thought to be safe and causes cancer, makes perfect sense..... You are missing the point completely.rob1101
ok so we should not legalize marijuana because tobacco was thought to be safe and causes cancer, makes perfect sense..... You are missing the point completely. what point? That marijuana is not as healthy as breathing clean air? That in the history of mankind not one person has died due to marijuana consumption? That marijuana has more positive medical benefits then negative ones? What is your point?[QUOTE="rob1101"][QUOTE="MoonMarvel"] Tobacco doesn't need chemicals to cause cancer. :roll:MoonMarvel
Yeah I am optimistic. I hope Cali will start the process and eventually other states will follow.
Well, In Denver it is legal, but it is still illegal because of national laws. I don't think they will change the laws even though they should.
Maybe by 2021 if you're lucky.supercubedude64If we're still alive then :P cause you know, 12/12/2012 is the end of the world and all :roll:
ok so we should not legalize marijuana because tobacco was thought to be safe and causes cancer, makes perfect sense.....rob1101You are missing the point completely. what point? That marijuana is not as healthy as breathing clean air? That in the history of mankind not one person has died due to marijuana consumption? That marijuana has more positive medical benefits then negative ones? What is your point? You might wanna read the posts before you reply to me. See where I made the original comment about tobacco.
"legalization is not such a simple matter as signing a paper and say ok you can smoke now. you cant just legalize something you have no control over. right now the drug trade is run by gangs and other often times violent organizations. and taxing the hell out of weed wont solve anything. as then a black market is then created and people will go right back to the original source. which doesnt solve many problems. not to mention many of these gangs(also talking cross boarder here not just local.) will then seek other ways to make money. be that heavier drugs or otherwise. not to mention what do you do with all those people who have been jailed on pot charges?"
Simply imposing taxes similar to tobacco and alcohol taxes will create a giant economic boon and take money out of the hands of dealers. If you legalize it, it makes it easier to prosecute those dealers who are doing it outside of the law and drives them deeper underground. If someone in a middle-class community can pay $15 a gram at a store two blocks away or drive to the bad side of they city and pay $10, which option are they going to take? Furthermore, part of legalization benefits are permits for growing small amounts for personal use. Readily available beats out cost any day of the week in America. Case in point, fast food.
As for heavier drugs, we focus the bulk of our efforts in the war on drugs on cannabis presently. If we took just some of that money and spent it pursuing hard drugs like cocaine and heroine we could decrease their availability. Whereas cannabis crackdowns have proven in the past to be inneffective, cocaine and heroine crackdowns have yielded far better results. Look at the cocaine boon of the 70's and 80's and the subsequent crackdown that drove cocaine dealers underground, and look at how effective cannabis crackdowns in the 70's and 90's have been. It's like night and day. Maybe that's because there are almost twice as many cannabis users as there are users of all other illicit drugs combined. As for what we do with those who are jailed, laws do not work in retrograde unless stated in the legislation. you cannot sue for wrongful arrest if what you were arrested for was a crime when you were arrested. Still, I don't know that releasing non-violent offenders would be such a bad idea. Keep a closer watch on those arrested for dealing, and I'm not saying to release those imprisoned for dealing harder drugs, but there is a serious question of if using is an imprisonable offense and the fact that every day they spend is prison is taxpayer money going to keep them there.
"to the one who said all drugs should be legalized? really? are you serious? have you seen what other drugs do? ever seen someone on meth? or heroin? yeah probly not. other wise you wouldnt be so quick to say such a thing. and to say that its our bodies we should be able to do what we want? i fully agree, if this was anarchy (im quite for anarchy of sorts). but we dont live in anarchy we live in a cooperative society and having useless drug addicts does not promote the betterment of said society."
Like I said, I'm not totally for across the board legalization and I certainly don't want to mix that discussion with cannabis legalization, but there is a question of if people are going to use regardless, is it or is it not better to keep their use heavily regulated. WhenI say hevily regulated, I mean a LOT heavier than cannabis is in California. True, it won't be as effective against the black market as cannabis legalization, but if addicts refuse treatment is it better to send them out on the street or to have their use heavily monitored by a doctor? I tend to think the latter, but whether it's a question of outright legalization or refined policies meant to put more effective treatment clinics and practices in place I don't know. I've heard short descriptions of alternative treatment methods and better oversight, but I've never seen a full functional working theory or any substantial research on the subject.
As far as functionality, that is largely determined by social standing. There are a great many users of hard drugs that, while causing serious damage to their bodies, remain functional for long periods of times. These addicts tend to be fairly wealthy and have unusual levels of access to drugs, such as physicians. Wealthier clients also account for large portions of drug sales that take place in poorer communities. the crack cocaine sale in Chicago, for instance, relies heavily on upper-class business. The addicts that have been classified as, "useless," are typically the ones living in poorer economic conditions, sometimes caused by drug use and sometimes not. It really doesn't amtter to the people doing the classifying, though, just the casual relationship between them being poor and using drugs is enough to say they are poor because of drugs, whether that's true or not.
"They don't see Weed as bad. Also I doubt many know what prohibition in the 1920's was, other than booze was banned and Al Capone. Little more to it than that."
There's actually a lot more to it than that. Prohibition can be described in two words: social warfare. At the time, the population segment of Protestants had been dominant since the country's inception. During the 20th century, immigration from Europe spiked. The new population were largely working class, growing at an alarming (to the "native" population) rate, and had social habits and practices that differed largely from the Protestants'. The working class, Catholic-dominated population liked to relax after work by hanging out at pubs, like they had done in Europe prior. That conflicted with the much more conservative outlook Protestants had on drinking and modesty. The common reason for prohibition is typically that crime rates were getting too high and families were beingbroken up because of the rapid spread of saloons, but a more in-depth look reveals it was based much more on social differences than anything.
And then, yes, alcohol was criminalized, people refused to give it up, and underground industry was created, criminals reaped the benefits, and crime went up. That's not exactly why it was repealed, though. One of the bigger reasons Prohibition was repealed was economic reasons. President Roosevelt repealed Prohibition in 1933 at the same time he was passing a plethora of new legislation meant to stimulate the economy. A yearly loss of $500 million in yearly tax revenue during the Great Depression cannot be rules out as a factor in repealing the law.
"Saying that worse things are legalized, and so weed should be legalized too is an entirely different line of argument.
The first can be argued, the second can't. Hell, the second implicitly accepts that marijuana is bad."
Weed is proven to be less harmful than drugs that are commonly accepted as within normal tolerances for legalization, how is that saying weed is bad? That's saying, "look, our standard is here that we've set with alcohol and tobacco, but not cocaine and heroine. Problem is, if cocaine and heroine are far right bad (trying todescribe visual aids with words) and alcohol are tobacco are just left of center good, and we all agree on this, why is weed, which in scientific terms way left of center good, cla$$fied as WAY right of center bad?"
"Weed is for lazy people who don't have an interest in their lives, in my opinion."
I own two current gen video game systems and one last gen system which I play on a regular basis, I spend at least three hours a day surfing the web, and not just out of bordeom out of constructive interests in things like news and political activism, I own over 200 CD's, a fair collection of movies, I have a Netflix account which I use, I'm teaching myself to play guitar, I watch between 1-5 hours of TV a day on a regular basis, I am always reading at least a couple books, right now I'm going back and forth between Simulacra and Simulation (try wrapping your head around that book) and re-reading a bible on Middle Eastern history, I'm going to community college for an associate's degree, and when I go on to a four-year college I plan on double-majoring, oh, and I smoke weed. I don't waste time, I balance many hobbies and interests with school and a personal life, and I don't sit around smoking and listening to my hair grow. Weed balances me out and helps me unwind, unlike liquor which turns me into a raving lunatic and gives me a hangover that ruins my entire day.
While I do think that research into alternative methods of drug treatment and regulation for illicit drugs should be considered, Dan, I think you are WAY underestimating what effect complete legalization could have on society. Like I said, I'm in favor of doctors monitoring drug use and prescribing dosages meant to wean the user off drugs, but total legalization? There's also an aspect I'm not accounting for in terms of cost increases in health care. Like I said, I think drug treatment needs to be re-thought, but I'm not in favor of total legalization. In fact, depending on the spike cannabis might or might not receive from legalization I think this argument could gain or lose traction. If cannabis use spikes greatly after legalization, I'd be leaning a lot more towards keeping the current practices in place with other drugs.
"in the lawful sense marijuana would be more dangerous considering its illegal."
When law is based on nothing more than lies it loses its credibility and power to govern. Cannabis studies didn't start to gain traction until after it was criminalized, at the time there were no known adverse health conditions. in fact, at the time it was widely accepted as a cure for common ailments.
As for the studies, I don't base my opinions on articles that come out alone. Every study I've ever seen saying that cannabis caused a greater risk for lung cancer than cigarettes was full of poor methodology such as not taking pre-exisiting conditions into account, not accounting for tobacco smoking in the cannabis smoking group, and other such oversights. The fact is, at least in the U.S., that in order to research cannabis you have to receive special permission, and that's usually only given out if the results coincide with what the prevailing thought on the matter already is. If I see the actual study, the methodology, and the results and compare them with that of other studies tfrom both sides, then come to the conclusion that the best methodology says cannabis is more dangerous then I will concede the point. Even than, I'm just saying cannabis puts you at greater risk for lung cancer than tobacco. That doesn't take into account aclohol, which is not only proven to be more detremental to health than cannabis in almost every way, but cannabis actually has the opposite effect in some regards like the pulminary system. While alcohol eats away at it, cannabis can actually provide benefits to it.
"The government needs money. Taxing marijuana could help increase revenue.
At the expense of the peoples health, not valid."
Prove it's really at the expense of their health.
"Anyone seen Idiocracy?
That's going to happen if they legalize it."
Of course, weed, which has next to no research about its effects on brain cells and is used by 14 million Americans, si going to turn the entire society stupid; whereas alcohol, which has many studies proving its adverse effects on brain function andis estimated to be used by 55 million Americans not on a regular basis but in binge drinking, is not going to have any adverse effects.
"Have one state (Wyoming or something remote) that has legal weed. Dopers will go there and tend to the crops and eat the entire stock of cookies then die of starvation. That's what you want, soccer moms!"
There is one state that legalized weed, California. And there are fourteen and a half million Americans who smoke weed, only they mostly buy from dealers who get their weed from drug lords, as opposed ot the portion who smoke in California and buy it from licensed vendors that sell it untaxed because the federal government refuses to recognize the weed industry as legitimate.
"Well, In Denver it is legal, but it is still illegal because of national laws. I don't think they will change the laws even though they should."
Technically states' laws are supposed to override federal laws in most cases, but Junior seems to have missed that part of American history when he was in High School. Must've been too busy smoking weed:?
"legalization is not such a simple matter as signing a paper and say ok you can smoke now. you cant just legalize something you have no control over. right now the drug trade is run by gangs and other often times violent organizations. and taxing the hell out of weed wont solve anything. as then a black market is then created and people will go right back to the original source. which doesnt solve many problems. not to mention many of these gangs(also talking cross boarder here not just local.) will then seek other ways to make money. be that heavier drugs or otherwise. not to mention what do you do with all those people who have been jailed on pot charges?"
Simply imposing taxes similar to tobacco and alcohol taxes will create a giant economic boon and take money out of the hands of dealers. If you legalize it, it makes it easier to prosecute those dealers who are doing it outside of the law and drives them deeper underground. If someone in a middle-class community can pay $15 a gram at a store two blocks away or drive to the bad side of they city and pay $10, which option are they going to take? Furthermore, part of legalization benefits are permits for growing small amounts for personal use. Readily available beats out cost any day of the week in America. Case in point, fast food.
As for heavier drugs, we focus the bulk of our efforts in the war on drugs on cannabis presently. If we took just some of that money and spent it pursuing hard drugs like cocaine and heroine we could decrease their availability. Whereas cannabis crackdowns have proven in the past to be inneffective, cocaine and heroine crackdowns have yielded far better results. Look at the cocaine boon of the 70's and 80's and the subsequent crackdown that drove cocaine dealers underground, and look at how effective cannabis crackdowns in the 70's and 90's have been. It's like night and day. Maybe that's because there are almost twice as many cannabis users as there are users of all other illicit drugs combined. As for what we do with those who are jailed, laws do not work in retrograde unless stated in the legislation. you cannot sue for wrongful arrest if what you were arrested for was a crime when you were arrested. Still, I don't know that releasing non-violent offenders would be such a bad idea. Keep a closer watch on those arrested for dealing, and I'm not saying to release those imprisoned for dealing harder drugs, but there is a serious question of if using is an imprisonable offense and the fact that every day they spend is prison is taxpayer money going to keep them there.
"to the one who said all drugs should be legalized? really? are you serious? have you seen what other drugs do? ever seen someone on meth? or heroin? yeah probly not. other wise you wouldnt be so quick to say such a thing. and to say that its our bodies we should be able to do what we want? i fully agree, if this was anarchy (im quite for anarchy of sorts). but we dont live in anarchy we live in a cooperative society and having useless drug addicts does not promote the betterment of said society."
Like I said, I'm not totally for across the board legalization and I certainly don't want to mix that discussion with cannabis legalization, but there is a question of if people are going to use regardless, is it or is it not better to keep their use heavily regulated. WhenI say hevily regulated, I mean a LOT heavier than cannabis is in California. True, it won't be as effective against the black market as cannabis legalization, but if addicts refuse treatment is it better to send them out on the street or to have their use heavily monitored by a doctor? I tend to think the latter, but whether it's a question of outright legalization or refined policies meant to put more effective treatment clinics and practices in place I don't know. I've heard short descriptions of alternative treatment methods and better oversight, but I've never seen a full functional working theory or any substantial research on the subject.
As far as functionality, that is largely determined by social standing. There are a great many users of hard drugs that, while causing serious damage to their bodies, remain functional for long periods of times. These addicts tend to be fairly wealthy and have unusual levels of access to drugs, such as physicians. Wealthier clients also account for large portions of drug sales that take place in poorer communities. the crack cocaine sale in Chicago, for instance, relies heavily on upper-class business. The addicts that have been classified as, "useless," are typically the ones living in poorer economic conditions, sometimes caused by drug use and sometimes not. It really doesn't amtter to the people doing the classifying, though, just the casual relationship between them being poor and using drugs is enough to say they are poor because of drugs, whether that's true or not.
"They don't see Weed as bad. Also I doubt many know what prohibition in the 1920's was, other than booze was banned and Al Capone. Little more to it than that."
There's actually a lot more to it than that. Prohibition can be described in two words: social warfare. At the time, the population segment of Protestants had been dominant since the country's inception. During the 20th century, immigration from Europe spiked. The new population were largely working class, growing at an alarming (to the "native" population) rate, and had social habits and practices that differed largely from the Protestants'. The working class, Catholic-dominated population liked to relax after work by hanging out at pubs, like they had done in Europe prior. That conflicted with the much more conservative outlook Protestants had on drinking and modesty. The common reason for prohibition is typically that crime rates were getting too high and families were beingbroken up because of the rapid spread of saloons, but a more in-depth look reveals it was based much more on social differences than anything.
And then, yes, alcohol was criminalized, people refused to give it up, and underground industry was created, criminals reaped the benefits, and crime went up. That's not exactly why it was repealed, though. One of the bigger reasons Prohibition was repealed was economic reasons. President Roosevelt repealed Prohibition in 1933 at the same time he was passing a plethora of new legislation meant to stimulate the economy. A yearly loss of $500 million in yearly tax revenue during the Great Depression cannot be rules out as a factor in repealing the law.
"Saying that worse things are legalized, and so weed should be legalized too is an entirely different line of argument.
The first can be argued, the second can't. Hell, the second implicitly accepts that marijuana is bad."Weed is proven to be less harmful than drugs that are commonly accepted as within normal tolerances for legalization, how is that saying weed is bad? That's saying, "look, our standard is here that we've set with alcohol and tobacco, but not cocaine and heroine. Problem is, if cocaine and heroine are far right bad (trying todescribe visual aids with words) and alcohol are tobacco are just left of center good, and we all agree on this, why is weed, which in scientific terms way left of center good, cla$$fied as WAY right of center bad?"
"Weed is for lazy people who don't have an interest in their lives, in my opinion."
I own two current gen video game systems and one last gen system which I play on a regular basis, I spend at least three hours a day surfing the web, and not just out of bordeom out of constructive interests in things like news and political activism, I own over 200 CD's, a fair collection of movies, I have a Netflix account which I use, I'm teaching myself to play guitar, I watch between 1-5 hours of TV a day on a regular basis, I am always reading at least a couple books, right now I'm going back and forth between Simulacra and Simulation (try wrapping your head around that book) and re-reading a bible on Middle Eastern history, I'm going to community college for an associate's degree, and when I go on to a four-year college I plan on double-majoring, oh, and I smoke weed. I don't waste time, I balance many hobbies and interests with school and a personal life, and I don't sit around smoking and listening to my hair grow. Weed balances me out and helps me unwind, unlike liquor which turns me into a raving lunatic and gives me a hangover that ruins my entire day.
While I do think that research into alternative methods of drug treatment and regulation for illicit drugs should be considered, Dan, I think you are WAY underestimating what effect complete legalization could have on society. Like I said, I'm in favor of doctors monitoring drug use and prescribing dosages meant to wean the user off drugs, but total legalization? There's also an aspect I'm not accounting for in terms of cost increases in health care. Like I said, I think drug treatment needs to be re-thought, but I'm not in favor of total legalization. In fact, depending on the spike cannabis might or might not receive from legalization I think this argument could gain or lose traction. If cannabis use spikes greatly after legalization, I'd be leaning a lot more towards keeping the current practices in place with other drugs.
"in the lawful sense marijuana would be more dangerous considering its illegal."
When law is based on nothing more than lies it loses its credibility and power to govern. Cannabis studies didn't start to gain traction until after it was criminalized, at the time there were no known adverse health conditions. in fact, at the time it was widely accepted as a cure for common ailments.
As for the studies, I don't base my opinions on articles that come out alone. Every study I've ever seen saying that cannabis caused a greater risk for lung cancer than cigarettes was full of poor methodology such as not taking pre-exisiting conditions into account, not accounting for tobacco smoking in the cannabis smoking group, and other such oversights. The fact is, at least in the U.S., that in order to research cannabis you have to receive special permission, and that's usually only given out if the results coincide with what the prevailing thought on the matter already is. If I see the actual study, the methodology, and the results and compare them with that of other studies tfrom both sides, then come to the conclusion that the best methodology says cannabis is more dangerous then I will concede the point. Even than, I'm just saying cannabis puts you at greater risk for lung cancer than tobacco. That doesn't take into account aclohol, which is not only proven to be more detremental to health than cannabis in almost every way, but cannabis actually has the opposite effect in some regards like the pulminary system. While alcohol eats away at it, cannabis can actually provide benefits to it.
"The government needs money. Taxing marijuana could help increase revenue.
At the expense of the peoples health, not valid."Prove it's really at the expense of their health.
"Anyone seen Idiocracy?
That's going to happen if they legalize it."Of course, weed, which has next to no research about its effects on brain cells and is used by 14 million Americans, si going to turn the entire society stupid; whereas alcohol, which has many studies proving its adverse effects on brain function andis estimated to be used by 55 million Americans not on a regular basis but in binge drinking, is not going to have any adverse effects.
"Have one state (Wyoming or something remote) that has legal weed. Dopers will go there and tend to the crops and eat the entire stock of cookies then die of starvation. That's what you want, soccer moms!"
There is one state that legalized weed, California. And there are fourteen and a half million Americans who smoke weed, only they mostly buy from dealers who get their weed from drug lords, as opposed ot the portion who smoke in California and buy it from licensed vendors that sell it untaxed because the federal government refuses to recognize the weed industry as legitimate.
"Well, In Denver it is legal, but it is still illegal because of national laws. I don't think they will change the laws even though they should."
Technically states' laws are supposed to override federal laws in most cases, but Junior seems to have missed that part of American history when he was in High School. Must've been too busy smoking weed:?
theone86
:shock: man, im glad im not involved in this discussion or else i might have been more inclined to read all that.
The prohibition of marijuana is what created the black market in the first place. Did you ever study the Prohibition of the 1920's? IT FAILED. People wanted to drink, and criminals rose to power as the source of much coveted booze. That's what we have today with marijuana. People want to smoke, and will always want to smoke, so they are going to get marijuana. I think that they would prefer to get it from a regulated coffeshop/dispensary (like in Amsterdam or California) than to buy it from some dealer who supports the violent Mexican cartels.[QUOTE="pis3rch"][QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]
legalization is not such a simple matter as signing a paper and say ok you can smoke now. you cant just legalize something you have no control over. right now the drug trade is run by gangs and other often times violent organizations. and taxing the hell out of weed wont solve anything. as then a black market is then created and people will go right back to the original source. which doesnt solve many problems. not to mention many of these gangs(also talking cross boarder here not just local.) will then seek other ways to make money. be that heavier drugs or otherwise. not to mention what do you do with all those people who have been jailed on pot charges?
to the one who said all drugs should be legalized? really? are you serious? have you seen what other drugs do? ever seen someone on meth? or heroin? yeah probly not. other wise you wouldnt be so quick to say such a thing. and to say that its our bodies we should be able to do what we want? i fully agree, if this was anarchy (im quite for anarchy of sorts). but we dont live in anarchy we live in a cooperative society and having useless drug addicts does not promote the betterment of said society.
blackacidevil96
and not once in my post did i ever EVER say i didnt want it legal. thanks for forming my opinion for me. I do want pot to be legal. i merely pointed out the obvious issues that come with it. and the majority of people seem to just think its a simple as signing a paper. when its not. next time ask what my actual stance is before assuming it.
My bad, i guess i made an assumption and i was wrong. Sorry for assuming what your position was. I think my point still stands though, as I don't see how legalization and taxation would create a black market for weed.
[QUOTE="supa_badman"][QUOTE="rob1101"] This one is more recentrob1101This one even more so any difference? i guess we'll never know. scientists keep coming back at eachother constantly. in the lawful sense marijuana would be more dangerous considering its illegal. That article is not more recent, and what is doctor ndtv? Do you know why marijuana is illegal? I know this is a blog but it is still a good read http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com december 14? compared to the june 27? hell you gave me ireland something while i gave you BBC which one would be more credible? regardless of them being recent. as for the blog...tl;dr. i read parts of it, but too long. doesnt stop the plant from being illegal does it? ;)
[QUOTE="rob1101"][QUOTE="supa_badman"]This one even more so any difference? i guess we'll never know. scientists keep coming back at eachother constantly. in the lawful sense marijuana would be more dangerous considering its illegal. supa_badmanThat article is not more recent, and what is doctor ndtv? Do you know why marijuana is illegal? I know this is a blog but it is still a good read http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com december 14? compared to the june 27? hell you gave me ireland something while i gave you BBC which one would be more credible? regardless of them being recent. as for the blog...tl;dr. i read parts of it, but too long. doesnt stop the plant from being illegal does it? ;) look at the year... 2007 vs 2008 At least they are both news sources... and isn't the BBC government controlled anyway? Think there might be some biased there if so. Yea I guess the plant is still illegal but that doesn't make the law any more morally right either. That is what needs to be changed.
my mom took anti depressants. messed her up badly. i think i should offer her cannibus but i don't wanna give my mom something considered illegal
Ask a doctor, some place allow it for medical reasons. Been that in CA for a while. My father took it for his pain, didn't work mind you.my mom took anti depressants. messed her up badly. i think i should offer her cannibus but i don't wanna give my mom something considered illegal
jimbojones_sw
it would be great
[QUOTE="jimbojones_sw"]Ask a doctor, some place allow it for medical reasons. Been that in CA for a while. My father took it for his pain, didn't work mind you.it just relaxes the muscles. i don't think it takes a lot of pain away. but thanks i'll see what i can domy mom took anti depressants. messed her up badly. i think i should offer her cannibus but i don't wanna give my mom something considered illegal
MoonMarvel
[QUOTE="jimbojones_sw"]Ask a doctor, some place allow it for medical reasons. Been that in CA for a while. My father took it for his pain, didn't work mind you. Some medications don't work for people, I have tried so many different prescription medications for my nausea/digestive problems the only one that kind of worked also made my butt hole bleed (sorry to be graphic but its true). However interesting enough no matter how bad or severely sick I feel cannabis makes me feel 100% better and its not like I have to get to the stereotypical completely stoned just a few hits and its 'intoxicating' effects are hardly noticeable don't get me wrong im not going on a moral trip I smoked to get high and still do on a recreational level. But now on some days when all else fails I self medicate with cannabis (too bad its illegal in my state), sorry about your father if he lives in a state where MMJ is legal maybe he could try different strans and smoke a bit more if he has not tried that already. In any case medical marijuana is an entirely different subject that hardly anyone disagrees with Im sure you don't think your father and I should be put in prison.my mom took anti depressants. messed her up badly. i think i should offer her cannibus but i don't wanna give my mom something considered illegal
MoonMarvel
my mom took anti depressants. messed her up badly. i think i should offer her cannibus but i don't wanna give my mom something considered illegal
Ask a doctor, some place allow it for medical reasons. Been that in CA for a while. My father took it for his pain, didn't work mind you. Some medications don't work for people, I have tried so many different prescription medications for my nausea/digestive problems the only one that kind of worked also made my butt hole bleed (sorry to be graphic but its true). However interesting enough no matter how bad or severely sick I feel cannabis makes me feel 100% better and its not like I have to get to the stereotypical completely stoned just a few hits and its 'intoxicating' effects are hardly noticeable don't get me wrong im not going on a moral trip I smoked to get high and still do on a recreational level. But now on some days when all else fails I self medicate with cannabis (too bad its illegal in my state), sorry about your father if he lives in a state where MMJ is legal maybe he could try different strans and smoke a bit more if he has not tried that already. In any case medical marijuana is an entirely different subject that hardly anyone disagrees with Im sure you don't think your father and I should be put in prison. Maybe, too bad hes been dead almost 7 years. :lol: I was speaking in the past tense, he used to do that in the late 90's early 2000 before he died. (And no, Weed had NOTHING to do with his death)Legalizing marijuana is a stupid idea. Marijuana is a deteriorating drug andhas been scientifically proven to destroy the brain at a shocking rate. It alsohas many substitutes in the medical field, so even as a pain reliever it can be done without. Why don't we legalizeheroinwhile we're at it? Personally, I want tobacco illegalized, but the reason smoking is allowed is that it's mostly harmful to the user. Marijuana has actually been the reason for murder and theft and more immoral activities that I cannot mention here. What's even more ridiculous is that people want it legallized. It's just irrational.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment