Medical Marijuana

[Laura]

Of course there are marijuana related deaths. For goodness sakes, there are pen cap related deaths. That's not what we were talking about though. She said you can OD and die from marijuana and that just goes to show that she needs to do some more research before making judgments like that.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to advertise the drug to anyone. If you don't want to do it, I'm perfectly fine with that. But when you come on here and tell us false things to make it look worse than it really is then that's just propaganda.

 

 

 

What's the point in it becoming legal? So you can get a "high", feel good? There's plenty of legal ways to do that, even ways costing less.

 

 

 

Yeah let's make video games illegal too since kids have been known to become addicted to video games and even kill other people over consoles. There are video game related deaths and you have to pay money to play so they should be illegal too...

 

That's comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

 

Video games can offer countless hours of entertainment, if used appropriately and responsibly. There's a fine line between being irresponsible, and being irresponsible because of drug realted issues.

 

 

 

And I would believe it possible to vaporize so much of the drug, that adds more than the surrounding oxygen count, leading to suffocation. So, that being said, I'm sure you can OD on anything your body takes in.

[warri0r45]

 

And I would believe it possible to vaporize so much of the drug, that adds more than the surrounding oxygen count, leading to suffocation. So, that being said, I'm sure you can OD on anything your body takes in.

 

 

 

Yeah, some more than others. There's an obvious distinction to be made between ODing on something like heroin (easy and relatively common) and ODing on something like pot (near on impossible and has basically never happened).

 

 

 

As for the topic, I think it could potentially have some benefits medicinally. As I understand, there are some studies against it, but a fair few for it, too. Let me put it this way - if I had a relative who wanted to use it medicinally because of chronic pain/nausea, etc, I'd say give it a shot.

[Laura]

 

And I would believe it possible to vaporize so much of the drug, that adds more than the surrounding oxygen count, leading to suffocation. So, that being said, I'm sure you can OD on anything your body takes in.

 

 

 

Yeah, some more than others. There's an obvious distinction to be made between ODing on something like heroin (easy and relatively common) and ODing on something like pot (near on impossible and has basically never happened).

 

 

 

As for the topic, I think it could potentially have some benefits medicinally. As I understand, there are some studies against it, but a fair few for it, too. Let me put it this way - if I had a relative who wanted to use it medicinally because of chronic pain/nausea, etc, I'd say give it a shot.

 

Eh, I guess I got the two mixed up at first.

[user1991]

Of course there are marijuana related deaths. For goodness sakes, there are pen cap related deaths. That's not what we were talking about though. She said you can OD and die from marijuana and that just goes to show that she needs to do some more research before making judgments like that.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to advertise the drug to anyone. If you don't want to do it, I'm perfectly fine with that. But when you come on here and tell us false things to make it look worse than it really is then that's just propaganda.

 

 

 

What's the point in it becoming legal? So you can get a "high", feel good? There's plenty of legal ways to do that, even ways costing less.

 

 

 

Yeah let's make video games illegal too since kids have been known to become addicted to video games and even kill other people over consoles. There are video game related deaths and you have to pay money to play so they should be illegal too...

 

 

 

 

 

He's right. You can't physically OD on marijuana, I think a study revealed that it would take over 1500lbs of PURE THC administered in 15 minutes for a mouse to overdose. That my be an exaggeration, but you get the point.

 

 

 

And to whoever said the point about people "needing it to get high" or wanting the feeling of being high - well, shouldn't they have the choice? The social consequences of marijuana are entirely due to stigma and propaganda. Sure, you become impaired, and you could crash a car - so why not make a law like they did for alcohol.

 

 

 

When we talk of legalisation, we don't mean we should make everything related to marijuana legal, i.e, you can drive whilst high - we aren't saying that.

 

 

 

What we're saying is, it isn't that dangerous, it doesn't even have to be smoked, the same laws we have for alcohol in terms of age and public conduct can apply, and that overall, the only real reason it is illegal is because of problems stemming from the very fact that it is illegal. If you legalise it, then big business taps into it, growing marijuana in a factory - therefore you don't get it mixed with other stuff. As well as this, this would practically put dealers out of business - who the hell would buy weed from some dodgy street dealer when you can buy a product you KNOW Is consistent in terms of quality from a licensed seller. And what kind of dealer would continue to sell marijuana when companies are making better products in bigger quantities in a LEGAL MARKET. Sure, people could grow it, but people can make alcohol and grow tobacco too. As well as this, even if you assumed that 99% of users were growing it (Which is ridiculous and would never happen), the government would still make more money than they do from making it illegal. It would also free up prison space, and give authorities more time to deal with REAL CRIMINALS.

 

 

 

So why isnt it legal? Old fashioned stigma and neoconservatives.

 

 

 

As for medical marijuana, the fact that the government in the USA still puts people into prison, who have been advised by their doctors to try marijuana, is both sickening and ridiculous. Quite honestly, that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. With all this medication out there, dangerous pills made in a lab somewhere, with various dangers and side effects, they continue to prosecute people who have been told by their doctors that weed could help them. Even in medical marijuana states, the federal government still prosecutes people, something to do with the authority of federal over state law. Goddamn, morphine is made from the poppy seed, (as is heroin), yet they still pump all this [cabbage] about weed being dangerous into the media. Most medication has side effects, get over it. So what if you become high? That is NOTHING compared to the side effects of drugs that are used daily in hospitals around the world.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

 

The problem with MJ becoming legal, is that it leads to social decay. People striving to get it, and then OD'ing, leading to "premature deaths". What's the point in it becoming legal? So you can get a "high", feel good? There's plenty of legal ways to do that, even ways costing less.

 

Just a helpful hint: don't listen to anti-drug/smoking ads on television, they are purely propaganda. Smoking marijuana does not make a person forget to pick up their little brother from soccer practice; it is the person's fault for being irresponsible.

 

I guess not, but I know enough about the drug, that I wouldn't consider taking it.

 

 

 

I think the fact that you can choose not to smoke marijuana should be applied in the same manner towards someone who does choose to smoke it. It should be a personal choice whether or not to smoke marijuana not the government's. Of course, then the question becomes: How much does the government intervene in protecting people from themselves? I'm still undecided on the answer to that question, but maybe someone else has some ideas on it.

[Laura]

Of course there are marijuana related deaths. For goodness sakes, there are pen cap related deaths. That's not what we were talking about though. She said you can OD and die from marijuana and that just goes to show that she needs to do some more research before making judgments like that.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to advertise the drug to anyone. If you don't want to do it, I'm perfectly fine with that. But when you come on here and tell us false things to make it look worse than it really is then that's just propaganda.

 

 

 

What's the point in it becoming legal? So you can get a "high", feel good? There's plenty of legal ways to do that, even ways costing less.

 

 

 

Yeah let's make video games illegal too since kids have been known to become addicted to video games and even kill other people over consoles. There are video game related deaths and you have to pay money to play so they should be illegal too...

 

 

 

 

 

He's right. You can't physically OD on marijuana, I think a study revealed that it would take over 1500lbs of PURE THC administered in 15 minutes for a mouse to overdose. That my be an exaggeration, but you get the point.

 

 

 

And to whoever said the point about people "needing it to get high" or wanting the feeling of being high - well, shouldn't they have the choice? The social consequences of marijuana are entirely due to stigma and propaganda. Sure, you become impaired, and you could crash a car - so why not make a law like they did for alcohol.

 

 

 

When we talk of legalisation, we don't mean we should make everything related to marijuana legal, i.e, you can drive whilst high - we aren't saying that.

 

 

 

What we're saying is, it isn't that dangerous, it doesn't even have to be smoked, the same laws we have for alcohol in terms of age and public conduct can apply, and that overall, the only real reason it is illegal is because of problems stemming from the very fact that it is illegal. If you legalise it, then big business taps into it, growing marijuana in a factory - therefore you don't get it mixed with other stuff. As well as this, this would practically put dealers out of business - who the hell would buy weed from some dodgy street dealer when you can buy a product you KNOW Is consistent in terms of quality from a licensed seller. And what kind of dealer would continue to sell marijuana when companies are making better products in bigger quantities in a LEGAL MARKET. Sure, people could grow it, but people can make alcohol and grow tobacco too. As well as this, even if you assumed that 99% of users were growing it (Which is ridiculous and would never happen), the government would still make more money than they do from making it illegal. It would also free up prison space, and give authorities more time to deal with REAL CRIMINALS.

 

 

 

So why isnt it legal? Old fashioned stigma and neoconservatives.

 

 

 

As for medical marijuana, the fact that the government in the USA still puts people into prison, who have been advised by their doctors to try marijuana, is both sickening and ridiculous. Quite honestly, that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. With all this medication out there, dangerous pills made in a lab somewhere, with various dangers and side effects, they continue to prosecute people who have been told by their doctors that weed could help them. Even in medical marijuana states, the federal government still prosecutes people, something to do with the authority of federal over state law. Goddamn, morphine is made from the poppy seed, (as is heroin), yet they still pump all this [cabbage] about weed being dangerous into the media. Most medication has side effects, get over it. So what if you become high? That is NOTHING compared to the side effects of drugs that are used daily in hospitals around the world.

 

I've said it all on the first page. It wasn't sown into the economy. It adds little benefit. It would free up prison space sure, but the taxation, and economic factors would probably end up costing more than hunting down the farms and dealers. It adds little benefit in the long run to the county. So, like I said, what's the point? Morphine, adds extreme benefits under certain circumstances, so I don't even know why you're comparing it. Marijuana for recreation doesn't, for medical reasons, of course, does. Find me where they put someone in jail for being prescribed THC.

 

 

 

 

I think the fact that you can choose not to smoke marijuana should be applied in the same manner towards someone who does choose to smoke it. It should be a personal choice whether or not to smoke marijuana not the government's. Of course, then the question becomes: How much does the government intervene in protecting people from themselves? I'm still undecided on the answer to that question, but maybe someone else has some ideas on it.

 

You do have a choice, even if it is illegal. The fact that you will go to jail if you are caught using it, only adds to the fact that's it's unhealthy.

[IGoddessI]

I'm not going to get involved in the whole make it legal for everyone debate but I really don't care about medical marijuana, they make it legal for a reason. I try to focus more on "what is" rather than "what isn't". If it becomes legal then I'll come back to discuss it. I just don't see the point in ranting on about something if it's not going to change the outcome, I'd rather put my energy in to something else.

[user1991]

I've said it all on the first page. It wasn't sown into the economy. It adds little benefit. It would free up prison space sure, but the taxation, and economic factors would probably end up costing more than hunting down the farms and dealers. It adds little benefit in the long run to the county. So, like I said, what's the point? Morphine, adds extreme benefits under certain circumstances, so I don't even know why you're comparing it. Marijuana for recreation doesn't, for medical reasons, of course, does. Find me where they put someone in jail for being prescribed THC.

 

 

 

"It adds little benefit"

 

 

 

Okay, lets see

 

 

 

-More prison space

 

-No money is lost prosecuting people for using it.

 

-The courts are freed up.

 

-People are no longer made criminals for a personal choice

 

-Police can spend time on hard drugs and real criminals

 

-Taxing corporate sales of marijuana would lead to HUGE amounts of money

 

-The illegal marijuana trade would be killed, removing both the gang relations and the stigma.

 

-People can use it, and KNOW that they are buying a product that is free of other, more dangerous drugs, and is also consistent in quality.

 

 

 

These really aren't little issues like you seem to think.

 

 

 

Not to mention, the entire concept of making something illegal because "it adds little benefit", is totally ridiculous. Yeh, it doesnt add a lot of benefit, I know, LETS MAKE IT ILLEGAL. What? That point is irrelevent anyway, when you consider it would add HUGE benefit.

 

 

 

And forget benefit a second - shouldn't people have the choice? Give me a reason why they shouldn't.

 

 

 

As for an example of someone being punished - well off the top of my head, I can think of Steve Kubby. The US government refused to give him marinol (a synthetic form of THC, which doesnt even cause the feeling of being high). I think they allowed it when he was close to death, yet still, there are others who have been imprisoned for actually using it medically. This is rare, but what is actually common is the closing down of the medicual marijuana vendors (which you need to show proof that you have doctors permission in order to buy it.) This isnt punishing them directly, but it does take away their regular supply of it. Totally ridiculous.

[user1991]

You do have a choice, even if it is illegal. The fact that you will go to jail if you are caught using it, only adds to the fact that's it's unhealthy.

 

 

 

God, please let the whole "unhealthy" point go. You dont even have to smoke it. And even if you did, SO WHAT? Being a stunt man is unhealthy. So is caffeine. It isn't the governments role to make personal decisions for the people on matters which aren't even that significant. The governments are starting to let go the whole link between schizophrenia and marijuana, cause they've realised the total idea is [cabbage]. Look at the people in Amsterdam, do they have higher rates of cancer/death/illness/crime/schizophrenia due to marijuana? NO. You'd think with all the supposed "dangers" it has, they would have actually noticed something.

[Laura]

I've said it all on the first page. It wasn't sown into the economy. It adds little benefit. It would free up prison space sure, but the taxation, and economic factors would probably end up costing more than hunting down the farms and dealers. It adds little benefit in the long run to the county. So, like I said, what's the point? Morphine, adds extreme benefits under certain circumstances, so I don't even know why you're comparing it. Marijuana for recreation doesn't, for medical reasons, of course, does. Find me where they put someone in jail for being prescribed THC.

 

 

 

"It adds little benefit"

 

 

 

Okay, lets see

 

 

 

-More prison space Except from the people that are desperate for the stuff, that they steal to feed the addiction, driving under the influence, the list goes on.

 

-No money is lost prosecuting people for using it. And more money is being issued for drug tests, and equipping cops with the tools to test for the drug.

 

-The courts are freed up. See above.

 

-People are no longer made criminals for a personal choice Right, so there morals will take over.

 

-Police can spend time on hard drugs and real criminals They don't go "looking" for drugs, unless there's a hint or suspesion, or pull overs, there's really no difference here.

 

-Taxing corporate sales of marijuana would lead to HUGE amounts of money Which would all be spent on the DUI drivers, cops, etc.

 

-The illegal marijuana trade would be killed, removing both the gang relations and the stigma. So now gangs can get high together, in public!

 

-People can use it, and KNOW that they are buying a product that is free of other, more dangerous drugs, and is also consistent in quality. Another thing for the FDA to overview each and every company.

 

 

 

These really aren't little issues like you seem to think.

 

 

 

Not to mention, the entire concept of making something illegal because "it adds little benefit", is totally ridiculous. Yeh, it doesnt add a lot of benefit, I know, LETS MAKE IT ILLEGAL. What? That point is irrelevent anyway, when you consider it would add HUGE benefit. Benefiting what exactly, certainly not public health.

 

 

 

And forget benefit a second - shouldn't people have the choice? Give me a reason why they shouldn't. They do, it's just unhealthy, and against the law.

 

 

As for an example of someone being punished - well off the top of my head, I can think of Steve Kubby. The US government refused to give him marinol (a synthetic form of THC, which doesnt even cause the feeling of being high). I think they allowed it when he was close to death, yet still, there are others who have been imprisoned for actually using it medically. This is rare, but what is actually common is the closing down of the medicual marijuana vendors (which you need to show proof that you have doctors permission in order to buy it.) This isnt punishing them directly, but it does take away their regular supply of it. Totally ridiculous. Then it was probably because it was looked into, that there was other alternatives, and then the doctors license was revoked.

 

 

 

You do have a choice, even if it is illegal. The fact that you will go to jail if you are caught using it, only adds to the fact that's it's unhealthy.

 

 

 

God, please let the whole "unhealthy" point go. You dont even have to smoke it. And even if you did, SO WHAT? Being a stunt man is unhealthy. So is caffeine. It isn't the governments role to make personal decisions for the people on matters which aren't even that significant. The governments are starting to let go the whole link between schizophrenia and marijuana, cause they've realised the total idea is [cabbage]. Look at the people in Amsterdam, do they have higher rates of cancer/death/illness/crime/schizophrenia due to marijuana? NO. You'd think with all the supposed "dangers" it has, they would have actually noticed something.

 

It's the same as having a speed limit. You have a choice to go over it or not. And sure, speeding offers some benefit at times, such as giving birth in a car, etc. But when it become for the good of the public, then the government should intervene. I don't really see your point, what does Amsterdam have to do with anything?

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

Medical use is fine, but I don't think it should be fully legal.

[user1991]

It's the same as having a speed limit. You have a choice to go over it or not. And sure, speeding offers some benefit at times, such as giving birth in a car, etc. But when it become for the good of the public, then the government should intervene. I don't really see your point, what does Amsterdam have to do with anything?

 

 

 

It's nothing like that. That is the worst analogy I have ever heard.

 

 

 

Speeding can harm others fatally.

 

 

 

Using marijuana, can't.

 

 

 

Unless you mean by driving and stuff, but that isnt "using marijuana", that is "using marijuana and driving." If a group of friends are just burning one down at home, how can that kill anyone like speeding does?

 

 

 

And Amsterdam is entirely relevant. By your speeding analogy it is obvious that you think legalisation and use of marijuana would affect the country in a negative way. And my point is, look at amsterdam. With all the supposed dangers, you would think they would have noticed an increase in all the [cabbage] we link with marijuana use.

 

 

 

Look, its clear the propaganda has got to you. I don't want to sound condescending, but for some reason, you're just naturally against marijuana subconcsciously, and in order to rationalise the likely cognitive dissonance that you would experience from people claiming that it has no harms and this being backed up by mainstream society and media, you have to result to these ridiculous points that are both false and entirely irrelevent, for example, asserting that logically, marijuana should be illegal because its legalisation would hold only a small amount of benefit, even though benefit would obviously be huge.

 

 

 

Fact is, if someone can have their life ruined for smoking weed, then the system has failed. If you can lose your job for having it in your blood system, the system has failed. If you can be imprisoned for possessing it, the system has failed. If you can be looked down upon by society simply due to government fueled propaganda, then the system has failed.

 

 

 

Just answer me this. What bad would come from legalising its use? I think you'll find that the answers, if any, are entirely on a personal level.

[Peter]

A significant amount of drugs that are illegal for recreational use are valuable in their contribution to the medical field. All opiates, which include morphine, codeine, oxycodone and many others, are frequently abused recreationally, and all can be found and used frequently in a hospital. Then you've got anti-depressants that are abused, but they also prove useful for those who are depressed. Marijuana is just another drug that can be used medicinally and recreationally just as well. THC can be synthesized so that it is in a pill form and the drug doesn't need to be smoked. Then you've got just another drug that can be incredibly valuable in the medicine community. All of the above drugs will give you a head change just as marijuana will, so using the fact that they get you high isn't a good enough argument to say that a drug such as this isn't useful in medicine.

 

 

 

The point is, so many drugs that are useful medicinally can be just as easily abused. If you're going to argue against medical marijuana, you should be arguing against any drug with addiction potential, such as opiates (incredibly addictive), and the many other recreationally used drugs. Marijuana is no different. At it's present time, due to the fact that it was used recreationally before it was used medicinally (at least in our current society), there is a bit of controversy following it's use in medicine, and as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be any problem with it. So what if people feel good when they're fighting pain or an illness or depression or any number of the thousands of problems marijuana can help for?

[Laura]

It's the same as having a speed limit. You have a choice to go over it or not. And sure, speeding offers some benefit at times, such as giving birth in a car, etc. But when it become for the good of the public, then the government should intervene. I don't really see your point, what does Amsterdam have to do with anything?

 

 

 

It's nothing like that. That is the worst analogy I have ever heard.

 

 

 

Speeding can harm others fatally.

 

 

 

Using marijuana, can't. ???

 

 

 

Unless you mean by driving and stuff, but that isnt "using marijuana", that is "using marijuana and driving." If a group of friends are just burning one down at home, how can that kill anyone like speeding does? "Lays, you can't have just one" When you're high, or smoking, you want to bring other people down with you.

 

 

And Amsterdam is entirely relevant. By your speeding analogy it is obvious that you think legalisation and use of marijuana would affect the country in a negative way. And my point is, look at amsterdam. With all the supposed dangers, you would think they would have noticed an increase in all the [cabbage] we link with marijuana use. You didn't explain anything about Amsterdam, is it legal there?

 

 

Look, its clear the propaganda has got to you. I don't want to sound condescending, but for some reason, you're just naturally against marijuana subconcsciously, and in order to rationalise the likely cognitive dissonance that you would experience from people claiming that it has no harms and this being backed up by mainstream society and media, you have to result to these ridiculous points that are both false and entirely irrelevent, for example, asserting that logically, marijuana should be illegal because its legalisation would hold only a small amount of benefit, even though benefit would obviously be huge. I don't need to have been told propaganda to know that having smoke come in contact with you lungs, is a bad thing. Despite what you or others say, it is a physiologically addicting drug. And I still don't see your benefits. The FDA (as an example)would have to approve each and every company which came up. Crashes would become more frequent, even with an illegalization against driving with it, the wide spread use of it, would have an effect just like alcohol.

 

 

 

[hide=Medicine.net]

How does marijuana affect driving?

 

 

 

Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.

 

 

 

There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in crashes. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone.

 

 

Symptoms

 

 

 

If someone is high on marijuana, he or she might:

 

 

 

* Seem dizzy and have trouble walking

 

* Seem silly and giggly for no reason

 

* Have very red, bloodshot eyes

 

* Have a hard time remembering things that just happened

 

* When the early effects fade, over a few hours, the user can become very sleepy

[/hide]

 

 

 

Fact is, if someone can have their life ruined for smoking weed, then the system has failed. If you can lose your job for having it in your blood system, the system has failed. If you can be imprisoned for possessing it, the system has failed. If you can be looked down upon by society simply due to government fueled propaganda, then the system has failed. What?

 

 

 

Just answer me this. What bad would come from legalising its use? I think you'll find that the answers, if any, are entirely on a personal level. Do I even need to explain the amount of people on the street with, slow reaction time, dizziness, etc? Oh, and look at this: In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. Image the Marijuana fatalities now. I have proof to back up the scientific evidence if you wish, one is already above.

[user1991]

You're assuming first, that use would increase exponentially with legalisation. I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Using marijuana whilst driving = bad. And the same goes for most things. Hell, playing a game of chess whilst driving is bad. This, I understand. Driving, whilst doing something else, is usually bad.

 

 

 

You compared the use of marijuana to speeding. When I say "use of marijuana". I mean, the use of marijuana without breaking other laws.

 

 

 

And those health risks you listed, dizziness etc. They are just pure bs. But, lets assume, for a second, that they actually occur when the high wears off. Is it not the user's choice to decide whether they put THEMSELVES in that danger.? Why couldn't they just have public conduct laws like they do with alcohol.

 

 

 

This is the point you don't seem to get. Why should it be illegal to use marijuana, when the only negative affects it has on other people are when you in turn, BREAK OTHER LAWS. And you seem to forget, that smoking is not the only way of consuming it. Hell, If the government announced it would only be legal to vaporize, i'd take that, any day of the week.

 

 

 

If I decide to twist up a joint, and use it at home, without driving, or doing anything else in a public place - what is wrong with that? The government, for some reason, would punish me for doing this. Can you explain why?

 

 

 

Oh and, in Amsterdam, it isn't technically legal, the police and government just dont care if you are only using it personally. They can sell it in licensed places, and as long as you only have a small amount, you aren't punished. And the weed isn't confiscated. Now you'd think, seeing as weed is practically legal, they would have all these negative affects that many over here think actually occur.

 

 

 

-The illegal marijuana trade would be killed, removing both the gang relations and the stigma. So now gangs can get high together, in public!

 

 

 

Ugh, need I say anything more? You need to cut the [cabbage], and actually think. Forget whatever you've been told, and view it from a neutral perspective.

[Laura]

You're assuming first, that use would increase exponentially with legalisation. I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Using marijuana whilst driving = bad. And the same goes for most things. Hell, playing a game of chess whilst driving is bad. This, I understand. Driving, whilst doing something else, is usually bad.

 

 

 

You compared the use of marijuana to speeding. When I say "use of marijuana". I mean, the use of marijuana without breaking other laws.

 

 

 

And those health risks you listed, dizziness etc. They are just pure bs. But, lets assume, for a second, that they actually occur when the high wears off. Is it not the user's choice to decide whether they put THEMSELVES in that danger.? Why couldn't they just have public conduct laws like they do with alcohol.

 

 

 

This is the point you don't seem to get. Why should it be illegal to use marijuana, when the only negative affects it has on other people are when you in turn, BREAK OTHER LAWS. And you seem to forget, that smoking is not the only way of consuming it. Hell, If the government announced it would only be legal to vaporize, i'd take that, any day of the week.

 

 

 

If I decide to twist up a joint, and use it at home, without driving, or doing anything else in a public place - what is wrong with that? The government, for some reason, would punish me for doing this. Can you explain why?

 

 

 

Oh and, in Amsterdam, it isn't technically legal, the police and government just dont care if you are only using it personally. They can sell it in licensed places, and as long as you only have a small amount, you aren't punished. And the weed isn't confiscated. Now you'd think, seeing as weed is practically legal, they would have all these negative affects that many over here think actually occur.

 

But marijuana doesn't just come with "perfect" users. You have to get those drivers, or those lunes who just lose it. You can't have both. Sorry. I don't know anything about Amsterdam, or have anything to back up anything I say, or you say, so I'll refrain from saying anything.

 

 

 

About these side effects, I think not. Tell me, what is the point in smoking it, if it doesn't make you feel high or free, makes you dizzy and what not? I've witnessed first hand people that have been proven to have been smoking pot, and have would up in the hospital for public nudity, harassment, but have been deemed unhealthy to be sent to prison at the current state.

[user1991]

You're assuming first, that use would increase exponentially with legalisation. I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Using marijuana whilst driving = bad. And the same goes for most things. Hell, playing a game of chess whilst driving is bad. This, I understand. Driving, whilst doing something else, is usually bad.

 

 

 

You compared the use of marijuana to speeding. When I say "use of marijuana". I mean, the use of marijuana without breaking other laws.

 

 

 

And those health risks you listed, dizziness etc. They are just pure bs. But, lets assume, for a second, that they actually occur when the high wears off. Is it not the user's choice to decide whether they put THEMSELVES in that danger.? Why couldn't they just have public conduct laws like they do with alcohol.

 

 

 

This is the point you don't seem to get. Why should it be illegal to use marijuana, when the only negative affects it has on other people are when you in turn, BREAK OTHER LAWS. And you seem to forget, that smoking is not the only way of consuming it. Hell, If the government announced it would only be legal to vaporize, i'd take that, any day of the week.

 

 

 

If I decide to twist up a joint, and use it at home, without driving, or doing anything else in a public place - what is wrong with that? The government, for some reason, would punish me for doing this. Can you explain why?

 

 

 

Oh and, in Amsterdam, it isn't technically legal, the police and government just dont care if you are only using it personally. They can sell it in licensed places, and as long as you only have a small amount, you aren't punished. And the weed isn't confiscated. Now you'd think, seeing as weed is practically legal, they would have all these negative affects that many over here think actually occur.

 

 

 

-The illegal marijuana trade would be killed, removing both the gang relations and the stigma. So now gangs can get high together, in public!

 

 

 

Oh and the term "physiologically addictive" is just a plain bs term. ANYTHING is addictive in that way. Running, helping people, playing video games. You just subscribe to the whole "drug" stigma because you can't actually view anything from someone else's perspective. Think of the actual people affected. People in prison for using weed? Pure [cabbage]. Absolutely, pure [cabbage]. Why should people who use it be LOCKED IN A CELL?

 

 

 

Ugh, need I say anything more? You need to cut the [cabbage], and actually think. Forget whatever you've been told, and view it from a neutral perspective.

[Laura]

It's not the use of the drug that people get put in jail for. It's the fact that if used enough, there would be larger scale deaths. Imagine 1 million people on pot. Now image 1/1,000 or them on the streets. You're presenting information as if you've smoked the stuff yourself. I don't know why you say all these sidefects are bs, when they have been presented through the DARE system, medical records, and plenty of other accredited sources

[user1991]

But marijuana doesn't just come with "perfect" users. You have to get those drivers, or those lunes who just lose it. You can't have both. Sorry. I don't know anything about Amsterdam, or have anything to back up anything I say, or you say, so I'll refrain from saying anything.

 

 

 

About these side effects, I think not. Tell me, what is the point in smoking it, if it doesn't make you feel high or free, makes you dizzy and what not? I've witnessed first hand people that have been proven to have been smoking pot, and have would up in the hospital for public nudity, harassment, but have been deemed unhealthy to be sent to prison at the current state.

 

 

 

The point is, nothing has perfect users. Humans, are by nature, imperfect, and thus, negative and problematic scenarios are sometimes unavoidable, especially when you're dealing with a general public numbered in the hundreds of millions. What I meant when I was talking about the side effects, is that they aren't nearly as damaging as you seem to think. There are benefits.

 

 

 

And you seem to be ignoring this point, so here it is, loud and clear.

 

 

 

Legalize weed, and you can still apply laws that cover DUI and public conduct. Don't think that legalising it would somehow also legalize other, more serious crimes

 

 

 

Not everything to do with it is negative. So what if I choose to set aside a couple hours of perfect physical ability in exchange for a feeling of being at one with the universe, physically feeling the vibration of peace and love, forgetting stress and letting all those worries fade away. If only it could be permanent, I say.

[user1991]

Imagine 1 million people on pot.

 

 

 

Done. I'll call my creation "Jamaica".

 

 

 

Just kidding. Look, people who want to use it use it. If its legalized, the numbers of people using it won't soar, they would probably rise, but not by such a vast amount that it would have any serious affect on public safety. Of course, laws would be put in place. This sort of reefer madness approach, that the number of people using it would rise exponentially, with people walking naked in the streets, crashing cars, causing a nuisance, is PURE propaganda. 1 million people on pot would be awesome. Absolutely awesome.

 

 

 

And your point about the FDA is totally ridiculous. It's their job. Weed shouldn't be illegal simply because it would take a while to regulate the sale of it. That's just stupid. Oh, regulating it may take a while, I know, I'll just keep it illegal, putting people in prison and ruining lives, needlessly. That makes perfect sense. Perfect, perfect sense.

[Laura]

But marijuana doesn't just come with "perfect" users. You have to get those drivers, or those lunes who just lose it. You can't have both. Sorry. I don't know anything about Amsterdam, or have anything to back up anything I say, or you say, so I'll refrain from saying anything.

 

 

 

About these side effects, I think not. Tell me, what is the point in smoking it, if it doesn't make you feel high or free, makes you dizzy and what not? I've witnessed first hand people that have been proven to have been smoking pot, and have would up in the hospital for public nudity, harassment, but have been deemed unhealthy to be sent to prison at the current state.

 

 

 

The point is, nothing has perfect users. Humans, are by nature, imperfect, and thus, negative and problematic scenarios are sometimes unavoidable, especially when you're dealing with a general public numbered in the hundreds of millions. What I meant when I was talking about the side effects, is that they aren't nearly as damaging as you seem to think. There are benefits.

 

 

 

And you seem to be ignoring this point, so here it is, loud and clear.

 

 

 

Legalize weed, and you can still apply laws that cover DUI and public conduct. Don't think that legalising it would somehow also legalize other, more serious crimes

 

 

 

Not everything to do with it is negative. So what if I choose to set aside a couple hours of perfect physical ability in exchange for a feeling of being at one with the universe, physically feeling the vibration of peace and love, forgetting stress and letting all those worries fade away. If only it could be permanent, I say.

 

 

 

But you're still missing the point I bring across. I'm not ignoring it. You brought up the "Why should I be in jail for doing something I choose; I'm not hurting anyone else." And the fact that we are numbered in the multiples of billions doesn't help the cause. The sideffects still outweigh the benefits. Legalizing weed, and applying the DUI charges etc, does nothing but increase health insurance and cemetery lands. Look at alcohol, legal, eh? Yet still, in 2005, 16,885 people died from alcohol related motor accidents, which accounted for approximately 39% of all motor accidents.

 

 

 

Imagine 1 million people on pot.

 

 

 

And your point about the FDA is totally ridiculous. It's their job. Weed shouldn't be illegal simply because it would take a while to regulate the sale of it. That's just stupid. Oh, regulating it may take a while, I know, I'll just keep it illegal, putting people in prison and ruining lives, needlessly. That makes perfect sense. Perfect, perfect sense.

 

I wasn't making a comment about their job, I was making a comment about the money used for investigation, etc. Ruining people lives? Humans adapt to change. It's like a dog, the often poo on the rug, but when the find out their owner punishes them, they often find another place to do it. Except in real life, you wouldn't do it at all.

[Kriegsmier]

I've said it all on the first page. It wasn't sown into the economy. It adds little benefit. It would free up prison space sure, but the taxation, and economic factors would probably end up costing more than hunting down the farms and dealers. It adds little benefit in the long run to the county. So, like I said, what's the point? Morphine, adds extreme benefits under certain circumstances, so I don't even know why you're comparing it. Marijuana for recreation doesn't, for medical reasons, of course, does. Find me where they put someone in jail for being prescribed THC.

 

 

 

"It adds little benefit"

 

 

 

Okay, lets see

 

 

 

-More prison space

 

-No money is lost prosecuting people for using it.

 

-The courts are freed up.

 

-People are no longer made criminals for a personal choice

 

-Police can spend time on hard drugs and real criminals

 

-Taxing corporate sales of marijuana would lead to HUGE amounts of money

 

-The illegal marijuana trade would be killed, removing both the gang relations and the stigma.

 

-People can use it, and KNOW that they are buying a product that is free of other, more dangerous drugs, and is also consistent in quality.

 

 

 

These really aren't little issues like you seem to think.

 

 

 

Not to mention, the entire concept of making something illegal because "it adds little benefit", is totally ridiculous. Yeh, it doesnt add a lot of benefit, I know, LETS MAKE IT ILLEGAL. What? That point is irrelevent anyway, when you consider it would add HUGE benefit.

 

 

 

And forget benefit a second - shouldn't people have the choice? Give me a reason why they shouldn't.

 

 

 

As for an example of someone being punished - well off the top of my head, I can think of Steve Kubby. The US government refused to give him marinol (a synthetic form of THC, which doesnt even cause the feeling of being high). I think they allowed it when he was close to death, yet still, there are others who have been imprisoned for actually using it medically. This is rare, but what is actually common is the closing down of the medicual marijuana vendors (which you need to show proof that you have doctors permission in order to buy it.) This isnt punishing them directly, but it does take away their regular supply of it. Totally ridiculous.

 

 

 

Normally (simple) Marijuana possession cases arn't usually in the jails long enough to make a difference. Its not like a felony court case that takes multiple days. Go before the judge, in out in a day....a few hours usually depending on when they are brought in. Really not a valid argument with the courts/jail, sorry. Unless of course you are referring to a grow house or operation or a ferrying operation which are few and far between compared to simple possession cases.

[user1991]

Okay, not that much time would be freed up in court. What about the other points?

[magekillr]

Look I'm all for decriminalization and yes I think it's important, but right now we need priorities.

 

 

 

Here's a thought: quit buying drugs on street corners, it's not rocket science. Yes drugs are illegal, yes that pisses me off, but the law's the law, and you'd better believe that if I choose to indulge, I will make every effort to lessen the risk that I'll be caught. Buying drugs in public, smoking drugs in public, carrying drugs on your person and in your car necessarily. If people would quit being stupid, they'd quit being arrested. If drug arrests would go down, perhaps there could be more of a push for decriminalization? So long as it's a money maker though, it's not likely to happen.

 

 

 

I am taking a progressive approach here while many others seem to be more reactionary in tone. Many want to change drug laws because they affect people, whereas I would rather affect drug laws by lessening the opportunity to be prosecuted for drug crimes. Even if drugs are decriminalized, selling them on street corners will still be illegal, so why not stop buying and selling drugs on street corners? Furthermore, knowing the consequences and risk of such actions and yet still going about it in a risky fashion makes you stupid and somewhat deserving of certain consequences. (you as in everyone in general).

 

 

 

I'm not writing off prohibition, nor denying it is a big issue. If you'll note my post is merely on the unbankability of those ideas with the current governmental/state schema, and how that's unlikely to change in the current ideological climate of the government, and so since we're mostly preaching to the converted when we talk of decriminalization why shouldn't we expend our energy, since we're talking to like-minded people anyway, in attempting to broaden their horizons vis-a-vis socialism, improving the structure of the government itself and the ways we relate to it, improving the very way we conduct our lives, the wisdom of compassion, etc., and how these broader currents of thought, if nurtured, would be more likely to bring about the decriminalization we'd all like to see than if we wasted out time lobbying for decriminalization as an 'issue' like any other? You frequently have to work on ideological change, as I see it, to really get anything done - especially on 'issues' so insanely polarizing as this. As I see it, the prohibition thing is the result of one of the greatest mind [bleep]s ever perpetrated in the history of thought. Undo all that mind [bleep]ing? The very IDEA of drugs in the collective and subjective unconscious of everyone, user or no, is fundamentally shaped by this mind [bleep], especially in the West. Undo that as a single-issue crusader, direction-less, mindless, zealous, blind? I say no thank you to that, sir. You seem to write as one fundamentally satisfied with our current systems of governance and our current social organization, while I cannot lay claim to that.

 

 

 

There's that stigma, that dogma, that taboo on drugs. It needs to be dealt with in a progressive way, not reactionary.

 

 

 

My 2 cents.

[Nadril]

But marijuana doesn't just come with "perfect" users. You have to get those drivers, or those lunes who just lose it. You can't have both. Sorry. I don't know anything about Amsterdam, or have anything to back up anything I say, or you say, so I'll refrain from saying anything.

 

 

 

Lets ban food because people eat it while driving and cause accidents.

 

 

 

As stated earlier nothing has 'perfect users'.