legalize pot?

[darkrider21]

this is something that i think would be good but we all have different opinions.

[Rylingo]

If supply is sorted out and a good roadside test is found for drivers, sure. Otherwise no.

[Volta]

There is honestly no good reason for someone to go to prison for smoking marijuana. Potheads are practically harmless...

[darkrider21]

There is honestly no good reason for someone to go to prison for smoking marijuana. Potheads are practically harmless...

and that would make more space for the real badguys insted of potheads

[Gauntlgrym]

as long as alcohol is legal........then pot should be too.
alcohol causes MANY more problems, yet it's legal.

[darkrider21]

true that.pot has a lot of uses to.its not for just geting high.they can make hemp rope and paper from pot

[Saeriel]

Alcohol is actually worse for your body than pot, non? It is more damaging, if I recall correctly.

In any case I am under the impression that marijuana should be made legal past a certain age, the same at alcohol - as much as I'm sure my class mates would dislike this response, somehow imbibing mind altering substances while your brain is still developing does not seem the most intelligent action.

[Cantelope]

http://www.breworganic.com/ProductImages/pots_and_systems/7.5-gal-pot.jpeg

Criminals, all of you.

[Genghis Beatrix]

Yes, I believe that pot should be legal. It actually helps people who are in pain or even have ADHD. Not only that, but overall it would be better for the economy if it was regulated. Not only will the government be harvesting trillions from us because a lot more people smoke it than you think. Also, it would clear out the jails/prisons to where we would not have to be paying for the cost of living for the people in there.

[Anoleis]

Regulate it like booze and I'm sold.

[marvel_phoenix]

By all means, legalize it. Just regulate it like we do with Ciggs and Booze. It would do some serious good for the tax rolls, plus gardening is very therapeutic in many cases, and it would give some folks something constructive and financially viable to do. That and make a whole heap of room inside our prisons for those who definitely should not be mixing with the rest of society...

[darkrider21]

eather they sould legalize it with a tax or make it where you can onley buy a certian amount a mounth.but yeagh pot will defantley help out with the econamey.stupid goverment doesnot understand what a gain legalizing pot would do to us all. but by all means it sould be like alchohal and have an age limit of at least 20 in my minde

[marvel_phoenix]

eather they sould legalize it with a tax or make it where you can onley buy a certian amount a mounth.but yeagh pot will defantley help out with the econamey.stupid goverment doesnot understand what a gain legalizing pot would do to us all. but by all means it sould be like alchohal and have an age limit of at least 20 in my minde

According to Brian from Family Guy, pot is illegal because the paper/logging industry doesn't want the competition from Hemp. :p

[Matty]

I think they should decriminalize it; not legalize. Government rakes in taxes for EVERYTHING already; I would not want to pay taxes on my weed as well. Plus the quality would most likely be a lower grade that they issue, purposely, to keep you buying more frequently.

I deffinately think that if alcohol is legal, they should at least decriminalize pot. I've heard of a lot more issues with drunk people (Murders, Assualts, Theft, etc.) than with someone who's stoned..... I'm sure there's stories out there involving criminal activity with an individual who's stoned; but honestly, I've never heard of one. Just saying.

Plus I live in the Weed capitol of the world! Everyone thinks it's Amsterdamn, but take a look at who's won the chronic cup the most years in a row.... BC.
9 out of 10 people who live here either use, or have used in their lifetime. So with the vast majority on the other side, would only make sense to decriminalize.

However; I do think the age limit would be appropriate. 18 sounds more reasonable than 19 tho, since ur technically considered an adult at the age of 18 anyway.

[SuXrys]

as long as alcohol is legal........then pot should be too.
alcohol causes MANY more problems, yet it's legal.

I don't think that saying that "If this is legal - then this must be that aswell' is such a good 'reason'/argument for it.
If alcohol came today it wouldn't become legal... Not even coffee would be legal if it would come out today!

Alcohol have just been around us for too long, that's why it can't be illegal, while other things, that may be worse or not, still are.

[Rylingo]

Comparing marijuana to alcohol is not the way to go about legalising it. Comparing your country with it illegal to a country with it legal, is.

And comparing the damage done by two doesn't work well since you have to start discussing average doesage, priority of importance when it comes to the bodies organs etc. If you really want to compare it to another drug, nicotine would probably be the best choice since they both effect the same bodily systems.


I think they should decriminalize it; not legalize. Government rakes in taxes for EVERYTHING already; I would not want to pay taxes on my weed as well.

If public services are used to fulfill demand then it needs to be taxed. Roads used to transport it? It needs to be taxed. If you have universal government healthcare, it needs to be taxed (and no its not good for you).

And if you're in the US, your taxes are fairly small.

[RyuTama]

Not even coffee would be legal if it would come out today!

Ffpffpfpshdkjs! Don't utter such terrible words! My heart is breaking!

---

On a more serious note, I agree with Matty that pot should be decriminalized; not legalized. People will use pot whether it's illegal or legal. If they use it while it's illegal, they could be fined and sent to jail, when there are more important criminals that need the attention. And I agree that stoners are practically harmless. All they wanna do is chill and eat cheetos for hours on end; I've honestly never heard of someone committing a legit crime while stoned (and I know quite a lot of people who smoke it).

But on the other hand, legalization would create taxes, mass-production, and could screw up the economy more than it already is. IMO, even an age restriction wouldn't help much against teenage smoking. This is where the whole "if you can't have it, you want it more" scenario comes in. Not only that, but people will be less likely to want to go to school or get a job if they were able to get stoned whenever they pleased.

[Token Black Guy]

According to Brian from Family Guy, pot is illegal because the paper/logging industry doesn't want the competition from Hemp. :p

Not only that, but i hear it makes a better bio-fuel source than corn. But i agree with a lot of people here that it should be legalized/decriminalized. There's some good uses for this plant besides the medicinal benefits.

[Gauntlgrym]

I don't think that saying that "If this is legal - then this must be that as well' is such a good 'reason'/argument for it.

well, that's just part of the reason. there are others.......such as, it would help the U.S. get out of debt. taxing pot would create MASSIVE cash flow.
anyways, the point is, it's just kinda silly to have alcohol legal, but not pot.
that's like saying "it's legal to KILL someone, but if you just HURT someone, you will go to jail"........ it just makes no sense to me.


If alcohol came today it wouldn't become legal...

that's a maybe *shrug*


Not even coffee would be legal if it would come out today!

i doubt that. energy drinks are 10x worse than coffee, and the have just started to come out relatively recently....they are legal.


Alcohol have just been around us for too long, that's why it can't be illegal, while other things, that may be worse or not, still are.

Marijuana has been used as an agent for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. Its use spread from China to India and then to N Africa and reached Europe at least as early as A.D. 500.

from wiki: "Contemporary uses of marijuana and cannabis are as recreational drug (http://www.animeforum.com/wiki/Recreational_drug_use), as religious rite (http://www.animeforum.com/wiki/Religious_and_spiritual_use_of_cannabis), as spiritual rite (http://www.animeforum.com/wiki/Spiritual_use_of_cannabis), and as medicine (http://www.animeforum.com/wiki/Medical_cannabis); the earliest recorded uses date from the 3rd millennium BC (http://www.animeforum.com/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC)"

so.......it's been around for quite some time :P

[RyuTama]

such as, it would help the U.S. get out of debt. taxing pot would create MASSIVE cash flow.

What if all of the people that started smoking this legal marijuana stopped working? We'd end up being worse off, even WITH the tax on it. I'm not an Economics major or anything, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't employment more of an issue in the US than current taxes (or lack thereof)?

[Gauntlgrym]

What if all of the people that started smoking this legal marijuana stopped working? We'd end up being worse off, even WITH the tax on it. I'm not an Economics major or anything, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't employment more of an issue in the US than current taxes (or lack thereof)?

that's just a silly sterio-type though.
EVERYONE i know over the age of 18 that smokes pot has a job. hell, I used to smoke (not anymore) and i worked 50hrs per week when i did.
not everyone that smokes pot is a lazy stoner that does nothing!!!

[RyuTama]

that's just a silly sterio-type though.
EVERYONE i know over the age of 18 that smokes pot has a job. hell, I used to smoke (not anymore) and i worked 50hrs per week when i did.
not everyone that smokes pot is a lazy stoner that does nothing!!!

...Wow really? I didn't say that. I meant that people that suddenly started buying pot just because it's legal may not be the most active people to begin with, and it could easily deter them from keeping steady jobs. Chances are that the more intelligent employees will know to stay away from it (or will be more responsible with it), but there's always the chance that people (especially the teens) will smoke it "just cuz they can", or "just for the hell of it". You may know people who smoke and have jobs, and that's all fine and dandy, but there are also people who don't.

[Eris]

Regulate it like booze and I'm sold.

This. Criminalizing things with a demand just creates a black market that funds organized crime, terrorism, and all sorts of nasty stuff.

[Gauntlgrym]

...Wow really? I didn't say that. I meant that people that suddenly started buying pot just because it's legal may not be the most active people to begin with, and it could easily deter them from keeping steady jobs.

who does something ONLY because it's legal if they have no interest in it at all??
people who wanna smoke, smoke. they all ready do it, doesn't matter if it's legal or not. people who don't wanna smoke, don't smoke.
some people try it a few times, and decide it's not for them...pres Clinton anyone?

check this out. make sure you at least watch from 1:50 to the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Eca-INIOw
i'm not a huge ron paul fan, but i thought he nailed it here.


Chances are that the more intelligent employees will know to stay away from it

there you go stereo-typing again. we all know that intelligent people stay away from drugs, right?? only dumb people use drugs :P


but there's always the chance that people (especially the teens) will smoke it "just cuz they can", or "just for the hell of it".

obviously we would have an age limit, just like we do with alcohol. it wouldn't be legal for a 13 year old to smoke it.


You may know people who smoke and have jobs, and that's all fine and dandy, but there are also people who don't.

correct, and guess what?? they do it even though it's illegal.

[Saeriel]

Not everybody will go out and buy it just because it's legal. Even illegal, if they want to use it, they will use it.

If it became legal I know I wouldn't use it *shrug* Well, I would once or twice to see if it actually effects my epilepsy but that's a different matter.

Just because something is suddenly legal doesn't mean people will start using and abusing it, and if they're the type who jump at the chance to buy it because it's legal I'm willing to bet they would be smoking it if it was illegal too.

I'm not sure if this had a point or not o.0 Sorry if it's nonsensical I'm kinda out of it.

[RyuTama]

who does something ONLY because it's legal if they have no interest in it at all??
people who wanna smoke, smoke. they all ready do it, doesn't matter if it's legal or not. people who don't wanna smoke, don't smoke.
some people try it a few times, and decide it's not for them...pres Clinton anyone?

Lol. I never said everyone will start smoking it just because it's legal. However there ARE people who will. There are people that DO have an interest in it, but don't have access to it. If it were to become legal and readily available, then yes, more people would smoke it because guess what? It's legal and easier to come by. Of course, those that don't have an interest in it now will most likely never develop an interest whether it's legal or not.


check this out. make sure you at least watch from 1:50 to the end.

i'm not a huge ron paul fan, but i thought he nailed it here.

You do realize that I'm not an advocate to keep marijuana illegal, right? I specifically said that I would prefer if it were decriminalized. Although it's kinda ridiculous to say that regulating drugs could in turn cause the government to start regulating every aspect of our lives.


there you go stereo-typing again. we all know that intelligent people stay away from drugs, right?? only dumb people use drugs :P

Again, lol. I never said only stupid people use drugs. However, I'm quite sure that more people that smoke marijuana and other drugs are less likely to have PhDs. Or am I mistaken? Also, those that have more time on their hands as opposed to those who are already preoccupied with a busy job or a family are more likely to. Again, tell me if I'm wrong.


obviously we would have an age limit, just like we do with alcohol. it wouldn't be legal for a 13 year old to smoke it.

Yes of course there would be an age limit if it were legalized. That goes without saying. But there are ways around the restrictions. Don't tell me you've never met a minor that was capable of getting booze. It's the same way with weed, and it will be even if it's legalized.

I personally think it's funny how I asked for some sort of statistic, and instead I'm being argued with. Moreover you are putting words in my mouth. I would sincerely appreciate it if you stopped that.

[marvel_phoenix]

This. Criminalizing things with a demand just creates a black market that funds organized crime, terrorism, and all sorts of nasty stuff.

Just like Prohibition did! The mob made oodles of money just by finding people to distill the stuff for them, and they did the rest.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------


Lol. I never said everyone will start smoking it just because it's legal. However there ARE people who will. There are people that DO have an interest in it, but don't have access to it. If it were to become legal and readily available, then yes, more people would smoke it because guess what? It's legal and easier to come by. Of course, those that don't have an interest in it now will most likely never develop an interest whether it's legal or not.

Don't mean to start beating a dead horse here, but:

People tend to do what they want, when they want, how often they want, whether it's legal or not. That is just part of human nature. But I think part of the big thrill some people have for smoking marijuana is because society tells them that it's bad to do so. If the message changed over to "Yes, you can do this, but as long as you do play by the rules of the game, we can't do anything about it." then there will be people who will stop, simply because the thrill of it is gone.


Again, lol. I never said only stupid people use drugs. However, I'm quite sure that more people that smoke marijuana and other drugs are less likely to have PhDs. Or am I mistaken? Also, those that have more time on their hands as opposed to those who are already preoccupied with a busy job or a family are more likely to. Again, tell me if I'm wrong.

Quite a few people with Ph.D.'s and high-powered jobs smoke weed. If it weren't for mandatory drug tests in lots of places, more would do it just to help themselves relax. My hubby would be one of those. Right now, he goes through like 2 cans of Snus a week! (Not the US manufactured stuff.. The Swedish or wherever it comes from. :p) It helps to reduce some the stress and anxiety that he feels through dealing with "stupid people" day in and day out, as well as the strict regulations and rules that come with his job.


Yes of course there would be an age limit if it were legalized. That goes without saying. But there are ways around the restrictions. Don't tell me you've never met a minor that was capable of getting booze. It's the same way with weed, and it will be even if it's legalized.

Kids will do things they are not supposed to, regardless. It goes back to the forbidden fruit argument. They may not even like drinking/smoking, but will do it anyway because they have been told they can't. Then you have the peer pressure B.S. that goes along with being a teenager. That may in fact be the bigger problem with under-age consumption, but it is not for this argument.

As for the argument that more will sit on their butts and smoke weed rather than get out there and work, they will have two options: find someone to support their butts while they sit and do nothing productive all day, or become a licensed grower of the stuff. That will be their primary options.

[Gauntlgrym]

Lol. I never said everyone will start smoking it just because it's legal. However there ARE people who will. There are people that DO have an interest in it, but don't have access to it. If it were to become legal and readily available, then yes, more people would smoke it because guess what? It's legal and easier to come by. Of course, those that don't have an interest in it now will most likely never develop an interest whether it's legal or not.

imho it's such a small percentage i highly doubt it would cause massive problems.

you seem to think that if pot were legal, suddenly huge amounts of people would lose jobs, and i don't agree.
pot cost money, right?? how are you supposed to buy your legal pot without money??
if you don't have a job, you don't have money for pot.....or do you think everyone would suddenly turn into a thief too???


You do realize that I'm not an advocate to keep marijuana illegal, right? I specifically said that I would prefer if it were decriminalized. Although it's kinda ridiculous to say that regulating drugs could in turn cause the government to start regulating every aspect of our lives.

that's why i said to pay the most attention to 1:50+. i do agree that he takes it to the extreme with the regulation of everything.
however i liked what he said at the end.

it's like if rape suddenly became legal, it's not like a huge chunk of our population would say "oh boy, i gotta try that out, it's gonna be awesome"
i'm sure a few freaks would do it, but far and few between. if you are not into something, then you are not into it.


Again, lol. I never said only stupid people use drugs. However, I'm quite sure that more people that smoke marijuana and other drugs are less likely to have PhDs. Or am I mistaken? Also, those that have more time on their hands as opposed to those who are already preoccupied with a busy job or a family are more likely to. Again, tell me if I'm wrong.

i'm sure you are right about the phd thing. however are you implying that without a phd you are somehow less of a person, or lazy?? or are you saying that people without phds are stupid??
if that's NOT what you are saying, then what's your point??

also, plenty of people with phds smoke pot. many of the student at harvard even smoke pot.
hell, one of our presidents smoked pot! the most powerful position an american can possibly attain, was attained by someone who (at the very least tried pot) smoked pot.


Yes of course there would be an age limit if it were legalized. That goes without saying. But there are ways around the restrictions. Don't tell me you've never met a minor that was capable of getting booze. It's the same way with weed, and it will be even if it's legalized.

and don't tell me that you've never met a minor that was capable of getting pot now. even with it being illegal.
i have a 19 year old sister, and she used to tell me that it was easier for kids to get pot than alcohol when she was in highschool.

the point is, that pot being illegal does not deter people from smoking it, if they want it. so why not make it legal so we can get some tax money.
esspecially if somthing even worse (alcohol) is already legal.


I personally think it's funny how I asked for some sort of statistic, and instead I'm being argued with. Moreover you are putting words in my mouth. I would sincerely appreciate it if you stopped that.

i'm sorry. i don't mean to put words in your mouth, i'm just trying to clarify.
some of the things you have been saying IMPLY certain things.
when you say something like "Chances are that the more intelligent employees will know to stay away from it", it IMPLIES that NON-intelligent employees are the ones that WOULDN'T stay away from it. ie:stupid (or non-intelligent) people do drugs.

[RyuTama]

Don't mean to start beating a dead horse here, but:

People tend to do what they want, when they want, how often they want, whether it's legal or not. That is just part of human nature. But I think part of the big thrill some people have for smoking marijuana is because society tells them that it's bad to do so. If the message changed over to "Yes, you can do this, but as long as you do play by the rules of the game, we can't do anything about it." then there will be people who will stop, simply because the thrill of it is gone.

That's true as well. I know plenty of people who stopped drinking when they turned 21 because of that very reason. Kinda stupid if you ask me but meh.


Quite a few people with Ph.D.'s and high-powered jobs smoke weed. If it weren't for mandatory drug tests in lots of places, more would do it just to help themselves relax. My hubby would be one of those. Right now, he goes through like 2 cans of Snus a week! (Not the US manufactured stuff.. The Swedish or wherever it comes from. :p) It helps to reduce some the stress and anxiety that he feels through dealing with "stupid people" day in and day out, as well as the strict regulations and rules that come with his job.

Mhm, I was just saying that it's more likely. I know a few who smoke and have their master's or a PhD, but then again, I know more non-smokers that do as well.


Kids will do things they are not supposed to, regardless. It goes back to the forbidden fruit argument. They may not even like drinking/smoking, but will do it anyway because they have been told they can't. Then you have the peer pressure B.S. that goes along with being a teenager. That may in fact be the bigger problem with under-age consumption, but it is not for this argument.

I couldn't agree more. As I mentioned earlier, the whole "if you can't have it, then you want it more" scenario comes into play. If marijuana were legalized and an age restriction were set, chances are a lot more minors would start smoking. If they had been interested in the first place, that is. I'm not saying they'd try it just because they weren't allowed to, but that certainly is a factor in a lot of cases. Moreover, if the parents had easier access to marijuana due to its legalization, then so would the kids.


As for the argument that more will sit on their butts and smoke weed rather than get out there and work, they will have two options: find someone to support their butts while they sit and do nothing productive all day, or become a licensed grower of the stuff. That will be their primary options.

I've seen both, unfortunately. That or they just scrape by on welfare and all that lovely stuff.


you seem to think that if pot were legal, suddenly huge amounts of people would lose jobs, and i don't agree.
pot cost money, right?? how are you supposed to buy your legal pot without money??
if you don't have a job, you don't have money for pot.....or do you think everyone would suddenly turn into a thief too???

Oh goodie, more words being put into my mouth. No, I don't think everyone would suddenly become raving burglars in order to get their pot fix. I never said that huge amounts of people would lose their jobs, either. Although both are certainly possible, as with any drug. Of course that's only in extreme cases, but nevertheless, you can never rule out the possibility.


it's like if rape suddenly became legal, it's not like a huge chunk of our population would say "oh boy, i gotta try that out, it's gonna be awesome"
i'm sure a few freaks would do it, but far and few between. if you are not into something, then you are not into it.

I already agreed with you on that.


i'm sure you are right about the phd thing. however are you implying that without a phd you are somehow less of a person, or lazy?? or are you saying that people without phds are stupid??
if that's NOT what you are saying, then what's your point??

Nope, I was merely stating a fact that there are less pot smokers with college degrees than non-smokers. I'm not saying they're any more stupid, because I certainly don't think that grades signify someone's intellectual capabilities. Surely, there are some geniuses out there that smoke marijuana, and some idiots that have PhDs. It's not all black and white.


also, plenty of people with phds smoke pot. many of the student at harvard even smoke pot.
hell, one of our presidents smoked pot! the most powerful position an american can possibly attain, was attained by someone who (at the very least tried pot) smoked pot.

Wow, good for them. I'm quite sure that there are more students at Harvard that don't smoke, and I'm quite sure that more presidents didn't as well. THAT was my point, which you seem to be missing. Also, let me be clear, I'm NOT saying that everyone who tries marijuana if it is legalized will become lazy, drooling addicts.


and don't tell me that you've never met a minor that was capable of getting pot now. even with it being illegal.
i have a 19 year old sister, and she used to tell me that it was easier for kids to get pot than alcohol when she was in highschool.

And how much easier do you think it would be for them to get it if pot was legalized and their parents had it all the time?


the point is, that pot being illegal does not deter people from smoking it, if they want it. so why not make it legal so we can get some tax money.
esspecially if somthing even worse (alcohol) is already legal.

Definitely. But you would think, that if something were legal and therefore more readily available, that more people would buy it. Sure, they can tax it, but I bet the overall price would decrease anyway, since there would be more supply due to the legalization. Again, I'm no expert at Economics, so correct me if I'm wrong.


i'm sorry. i don't mean to put words in your mouth, i'm just trying to clarify.
some of the things you have been saying IMPLY certain things.
when you say something like "Chances are that the more intelligent employees will know to stay away from it", it IMPLIES that NON-intelligent employees are the ones that WOULDN'T stay away from it. ie:stupid (or non-intelligent) people do drugs.

Okay I admit, I worded that badly, and I apologize. I've already clarified that statement though. If you think I'm implying something, then ask for clarification. Don't assume I mean the worst and then attack me for it.

[Matty]

Sorry, skimmed through most of it, didn't feel like reading for the next hour, lol.

The approach that I brought up for decriminalization wasn't just to avoid taxes and lower grade bud; but also the fact that nothing would really change. Litterally it's just the "criminal offence" tag taken off. So there wouldn't be billions of generated revenue, or the corruption of a country, or all the other suggestive outcomes.

Obviously there would have to be basic rules set in place where smoking pot in high traffic public areas wouldn't be allowed; same as smoking. And other rules or regulations involved with driving while under the influence, and so on.

Decriminalization wouldn't "make" or "break" the economy; for the most part it would just save my criminal record, and many others' from being tarnished by such a stupid offence. All chaos won't break loose, and junkies won't rule the country. However, our prison systems will no longer be over populated by minor offenders (I think prison cells belong to people who are truly deserving of it, and by no means should a simple stoner be thrown in with the harsher prison population).

The age limit would obviously be just for legal reasons. Alcohol and cigarettes have an age limit on them, yet minors still obtain them. I know for a fact that pot will always be accessible to high school students, no matter what laws there are, or aren't. The fact that it's decriminalized won't change that; but it will change the fact that their records won't be tainted for possibly a lifetime from it. I don't believe there will be a sudden flood into getting stoned; just the same people that would do it anyways, regardless of its criminal status.

[Rylingo]

the point is, that pot being illegal does not deter people from smoking it, if they want it. so why not make it legal so we can get some tax money.
esspecially if somthing even worse (alcohol) is already legal.

On what sort of subjective scale are you saying alcohol is worse than weed? Is there any country were alcohol is taken in similar amounts to weed? How do you measure said amounts.
What i'm trying to get at is it annoys me when people take pot (pun very much intended) shots at my pint! If I have a pint whilst watching a football match with my friends does it somehow do more damage that smoking a spliff with my friends whilst watching a football match? Does it?

And I know were this is heading, drunk aggressive people outside nightclubs. If we want to prove alcohol is more dangerous then we have to test giving people excessive amounts of strong (read extremely strong) weed very quickly to see if there is dangerous reactions. Medical or antisocial.


Once again I've got to ask, is there any quick reliable way for testing drivers for pot? Alcohol is easy to breathalise but if weed is legalised it must also have a breathaliser.


And to the people who say decriminalise but not legalise, you do realise that large corporations will jump all over that? Your giving them a product that they can sell without tax.

[Meenah]

So they put someone in prison for life because they smoke pot and they're happy happy people whereas someone who is a serial killer gets 20 years? Weird how things work, I'd legalize pot.. idk, I really don't care much.

[Datenshi]

I may be misinformed, but to my understanding, the reason that the government is hesitant to legalize marijuana (as opposed to tobacco or alcohol) is because it is especially difficult to tax. Tobacco and alcohol need fairly specific conditions and equipment to produce and manufacture, which makes it easy to track, but marijuana can be grown in a teenager's back yard under virtually any conditions, which makes it problematic when you want to put a tax on the final product.

As for my view, I don't have first-hand experience with any sort of drug and I don't have much of an opinion, but strictly as regards to marijuana, I incline towards a more liberal view, solely based on the fact that the logic on the side of its detractors leave a lot to be desired. I was browsing a just-say-no-to-marijuana pamphlet from my university the other day, but I remained unimpressed by the rhetoric. For example, it told me that about 30 percent of all marijuana-related crimes are violent, therefore marijuana causes violence. But then, I couldn't help thinking what the percentage would be for alcohol-related crimes.

Also,

What i'm trying to get at is it annoys me when people take pot (pun very much intended) shots at my pint! If I have a pint whilst watching a football match with my friends does it somehow do more damage that smoking a spliff with my friends whilst watching a football match? Does it?

And I know were this is heading, drunk aggressive people outside nightclubs. If we want to prove alcohol is more dangerous then we have to test giving people excessive amounts of strong (read extremely strong) weed very quickly to see if there is dangerous reactions. Medical or antisocial.
You're right, but you're missing the point, which is that the fact nobody has yet to conduct the kind of experiments you speak of is precisely the problem. If it is indeed proved that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol, then that would be a good reason to ban it. If it is proved to the contrary, then that would be strong grounds for legalization. But the burden of proof should be on those who actively want to criminalize it outright. You can't just send people to do hard time in prison for doing something, while not even giving solid evidence, on the grounds that it might or might not be more dangerous than alcohol. That would be like banning violent games outright on the grounds that it might cause violent behavior. As long as the evidence is inconclusive, people's liberties should be given precedence.


Once again I've got to ask, is there any quick reliable way for testing drivers for pot? Alcohol is easy to breathalise but if weed is legalised it must also have a breathaliser.
I find it a little unclear where your assumption that marijuana "must have a breathaliser" in order to be legalized comes from. Driving under the influence is only one of several offenses that leads to dangerous driving; sleep-deprivation, or driving without a license, or driving while psychologically unstable, are all causes of accidents that can't be measured by a breathaliser, but the police find ways to regulate those activities just the same, breathaliser or not. It just so happens that drunk driving is easier to test than other offenses because we have a breathaliser for that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to test all other offenses using the same exacting standard.

[marvel_phoenix]

On what sort of subjective scale are you saying alcohol is worse than weed? Is there any country were alcohol is taken in similar amounts to weed? How do you measure said amounts.
What i'm trying to get at is it annoys me when people take pot (pun very much intended) shots at my pint! If I have a pint whilst watching a football match with my friends does it somehow do more damage that smoking a spliff with my friends whilst watching a football match? Does it?

I believe that the "alcohol is worse" argument is referring to drunken driving, which can do a significant amount of damage.


Once again I've got to ask, is there any quick reliable way for testing drivers for pot? Alcohol is easy to breathalise but if weed is legalised it must also have a breathaliser.

I've never smoked it myself, nor have I been too close to someone that does on a regular basis, but I get the impression that much of the time those that do tend to stay home/in one spot when they do. And supposedly Marijuana is one of those drugs that makes you a bit on the paranoid side while you're high, and those that are out driving are rather easy to spot because they're tooling down the road like little old ladies. Again, supposedly.

Some sort of breathalyzer technology would not be a bad idea, but i'm not sure how it would be possible with drugs. Even with alcohol, it only gives cops an *idea* of how drunk a person is. Blood tests are still more accurate. Also, sadly enough, it's sometimes hard to tell if a person high or simply drunk unless you know what you're looking at (i.e. healthworkers, and law enforcement). Our local stoner neighbor lady was stumbling around the building a couple of weeks ago, and at first glance I thought that she was drunk. :redface:

[Gauntlgrym]

On what sort of subjective scale are you saying alcohol is worse than weed?

well.....
1. Marijuana is far less toxic and less addictive than alcohol.
2. Long-term marijuana use is far less damaging than long-term alcohol use.
3. Alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.
4. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.
5. Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.
6. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses, whereas marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape.
7. Alcohol use contributes to reckless behavior and serious injuries, and it is highly associated with emergency room visits, whereas marijuana use does not contribute to such behavior and injuries, and is seldomly associated with emergency room visits.

http://www.saferchoice.org/images/banners/didyouknow05.png (http://www.saferchoice.org/component/option,com_banners/task,click/bid,8/)

ALSO...
(PhysOrg.com) -- It appears that when it comes to teen brain development, parents should be more worried about alcohol abuse than marijuana abuse. Two recent studies have been published showing that alcohol -- a legal substance (though not legal for teens in the U.S.) -- is considered more dangerous than marijuana, which is illegal in many countries.

full article here: http://www.physorg.com/news157280425.html


Once again I've got to ask, is there any quick reliable way for testing drivers for pot? Alcohol is easy to breathalyser but if weed is legalized it must also have a breathalyser.

first off, just fyi.......
you can legally refuse the Breathalyzer, and request a bloodtest instead. if you pass the bloodtest you are g2g.
speaking of bloodtest, that can work for pot!

yea, problem solved. the cops can simply do something that is already offererd for alcohol offenses.
if the will do it for alcohol, then why not pot??

[Rylingo]

I've never smoked it myself, nor have I been too close to someone that does on a regular basis, but I get the impression that much of the time those that do tend to stay home/in one spot when they do. And supposedly Marijuana is one of those drugs that makes you a bit on the paranoid side while you're high, and those that are out driving are rather easy to spot because they're tooling down the road like little old ladies. Again, supposedly.

Really depends on the person. Ive taken weed twice. It just made me giggly and then after awhile, paranoid. And then I got a sore throat and chest afterwards (always had a bad chest).


well.....
1. Marijuana is far less toxic and less addictive than alcohol.
2. Long-term marijuana use is far less damaging than long-term alcohol use.
3. Alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.
4. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.
5. Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.
6. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses, whereas marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape.
7. Alcohol use contributes to reckless behavior and serious injuries, and it is highly associated with emergency room visits, whereas marijuana use does not contribute to such behavior and injuries, and is seldomly associated with emergency room visits.


To measure the two side by side to detect this we need to have set dosages for this. We also need two equal methods in bringing into the subjects body. If we were to measure them side-by-side I would probably measure alcohol being inhaled to weed being inhaled since that would make the test more fair in measuring toxicity.

The only problem being that alcohol and weed both come in a range of forms and strengths. I can get a 1% pint in my local supermarket. I can also get a 97% alcoholic drink there. Downing the whole of that bottle would probably kill you. Could we force a subject to take in so much marijuana that suffication was induced? Probably.


You seem to want to compare the damage done by each in their current environment which is relatively unfair considering alcohol is taken more and in larger quantities stacking the odds against it from the word go. Unscientific method.


(PhysOrg.com) -- It appears that when it comes to teen brain development, parents should be more worried about alcohol abuse than marijuana abuse. Two recent studies have been published showing that alcohol -- a legal substance (though not legal for teens in the U.S.) -- is considered more dangerous than marijuana, which is illegal in many countries.

Firstly, any parent who's main concern when it comes to marijuana and alcohol is some sort of brain hinderment, is moronic.
Brain damage is not my concern with either of these. Nor should it be anyone elses.

When it comes to alcohol I believe the main danger is suffocation on the patients own vomit whilst passed out.
When it comes to marijuana I believe the main danger would be the increased risk of lung cancer risk.
Parents tend to see the brain as the biggest risk when it comes to any substance which usually isn't true.

Another reason the two are not easily compared.


first off, just fyi.......
you can legally refuse the Breathalyzer, and request a bloodtest instead. if you pass the bloodtest you are g2g.
speaking of bloodtest, that can work for pot!

yea, problem solved. the cops can simply do something that is already offererd for alcohol offenses.
if the will do it for alcohol, then why not pot??

Yes but you either need to fail a breathalyzer or refuse to take one, otherwise cops cannot take you in for a blood test. If the cops can take people in under pure suspicion it might become an abusive use of power (from ireland so don't know the states laws perfectly).
I would suggest a urine test but there's going to be issues with requesting urine on a street.

That said, honestly I don't think it would be that difficult to develope an breathalizer for pot is enough money was invested into creating one.

[Assiduous✡Aristocrat]

Gary Johnson > Ron Paul.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/gary-johnson-on-legalizing-marijuana_n_1082533.html

[Saeriel]

I believe that the "alcohol is worse" argument is referring to drunken driving, which can do a significant amount of damage.

Actually, in my case at the least, I was referring to the physiological and psychological effects making alcohol worse ^^

[marvel_phoenix]

Actually, in my case at the least, I was referring to the physiological and psychological effects making alcohol worse ^^

As in too much of a good thing? ;)

[Saeriel]

As in too much of a good thing? ;)

As in it is far harder on your body than many other drugs.

[darkrider21]

But what about the people who have Ben to jail?Do u guys think they sould be allowed to buy pot.well if it's not to bad of an ofiance then yes.but the theafs,murders and multipal battery charges would be excluded

[KageNoNeko]

I'm kind of inclined on the whole side of getting legalized because I've seen the stuff growing wild on a farm and having it illegal kind of makes me wonder if they would do anything about the wild stuff.

I believe if you want to think about legalizing pot, the Netherlands is probably a good place to look at since they done it.

[Gauntlgrym]

You seem to want to compare the damage done by each in their current environment which is relatively unfair considering alcohol is taken more and in larger quantities stacking the odds against it from the word go. Unscientific method.

more in depth explaination for ya.
57528
Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use." Source: http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose. Source: The American Scientist (Magazine of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society). Gable, Robert. May-June 006. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/the-toxicity-of-recreational-drugs/1
57529
There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history. The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.

In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

Long-term marijuana use is far less damaging than long-term alcohol use.


Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported 20,687 “alcohol-induced deaths” (excluding accidents and homicides) in 2003. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

The CDC has no reports of “marijuana-induced deaths.” (In reality, there may be 2-5 deaths each year attributed to marijuana, but this article -- http://bbsnews.net/bw2005-02-01.html-- describes how these are actually deaths attributable to other causes but “blamed” on marijuana due to the way the data is collected.)

There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations.

There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers. Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug. Source: Iversen, Leslie. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. Volume 5, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 69-72. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology.

The latest and most comprehensive research on marijuana has concluded that it does not contribute to the development of lung cancer. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR200605... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html)

There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.



Firstly, any parent who's main concern when it comes to marijuana and alcohol is some sort of brain hinderment, is moronic.
Brain damage is not my concern with either of these. Nor should it be anyone elses.

fact is, if your child were to start drinking or smoking pot at (let's just say) 15. the alcohol has a MUCH greater chance to cause some kind of long term damage.
it's not moronic to worry about stuff like that, because TONS of kids are starting to smoke and drink at young ages nowadays. imo, i'd rather my 15-16 year old smoke pot than drink.
because at least the pot won't F* them up forever.

[Datenshi]

To measure the two side by side to detect this we need to have set dosages for this. We also need two equal methods in bringing into the subjects body. If we were to measure them side-by-side I would probably measure alcohol being inhaled to weed being inhaled since that would make the test more fair in measuring toxicity.

The only problem being that alcohol and weed both come in a range of forms and strengths. I can get a 1% pint in my local supermarket. I can also get a 97% alcoholic drink there. Downing the whole of that bottle would probably kill you. Could we force a subject to take in so much marijuana that suffication was induced? Probably.

You seem to want to compare the damage done by each in their current environment which is relatively unfair considering alcohol is taken more and in larger quantities stacking the odds against it from the word go. Unscientific method.

Your point is valid, but it's only relevant if the discussion was at a science fair.

Right now we're talking about whether or not the practice of consuming marijuana is more harmful to society as a whole than alcohol. As such, the harmful effects of both have to be measured against the reality of the society we currently live in. People do not actually inhale alcohol, and people do not go "binge" smoking marijuana to the extent that they do with alcohol.

Hypothesizing about unrealistic situations might be interesting from a theoretical point of view, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether the law should prohibit something or not. You're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest.

[Rylingo]

marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer.


The risk of lung cancer increased 8% for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking,
Source: Aldington, S. et al. Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study. The European Respiratory Journal. 2008. 31(2):280-6.


There are some reasons to think that marijuana smoking might increase lung cancer risk. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes. (Tar is the sticky, solid material that remains after burning, which is thought to contain most of the harmful substances in smoke.) Marijuana cigarettes (joints) are typically smoked all the way to the end, where tar content is the highest. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. And because marijuana is an illegal substance, it is not possible to control what other substances it might contain.

But it has been hard to study whether there is a link between marijuana and lung cancer because it is not easy to gather information about the use of illegal drugs. Also, many marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes. This makes it hard to know how much of the risk is from tobacco and how much might be from marijuana. In the very limited studies done so far, marijuana use has not been strongly linked to lung cancer, but more research in this area is needed.
Source: America Cancer Society, 2010


Habitual smoking of marijuana has a number of effects on the respiratory and immune systems that may be clinically relevant. These include alterations in lung function ranging from no to mild airflow obstruction without evidence of diffusion impairment, an increased prevalence of acute and chronic bronchitis, striking endoscopic findings of airway injury (erythema, edema, and increased secretions) that correlate with histopathological alterations in bronchial biopsies, and dysregulated growth of the bronchial epithelium associated with altered expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins involved in the pathogenesis of bronchogenic carcinoma. Other consequences of regular marijuana use include ultrastructual abnormalities in human alveolar macrophages along with impairment of their cytokine production, antimicrobial activity, and tumoricidal function. Cannabinoid receptor expression is altered in leukocytes collected from the blood of chronic smokers, and experimental models support a role for delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in suppressing T cell function and cell-mediated immunity.
Source: Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2002.

Could find other sources. Its not difficult.


People do not actually inhale alcohol,

People do actually inhale alcohol. Its kinda rare. Tried it myself once. Won't be doing it again. Its horrible.



Still not anti-marijuana.

[Matty]

Just curious... how many people who posted in here actually smoke pot? I'm getting the feeling that most have smoked it once or twice at most...

You know my opinion, of decriminalization, and I'm against legalization, but it's because I smoke.

Not to bring the subject off topic; but how come so many non-smokers want it legalized? I won't down your enthusiasm towards it, just curious on why you feel that way

[Rylingo]

Not to bring the subject off topic; but how come so many non-smokers want it legalized? I won't down your enthusiasm towards it, just curious on why you feel that way

To many people in jail for nonviolent crimes.
Waste of public money trying to get rid of pot. A substance that does little damage.
It could gain good revenues in tax which could be spent repairing public services.
etc.

[Kanjoudakai_Ira]

I'd choose pot over tobacco, hell, I'd choose pot over alcohol. I don't understand how those two are far more dangerous and damaging, yet they're legal. Pot is the mildest form of drug, ever, and rarely has consequences to it since it's pretty harmless. No stoned man is gonna start fights and do stupid stuff to other people, and the only form of addict it causes is mental-addiction, and not biological-addiction like tobacco and alcohol.
But that's society logic for you.

[Rylingo]

Whilst I remain for the legalisation of a lot of drugs, should the private sector be able to provide driving tests for them the main question that you should be asking is, "When I go to an ATM at night am I worried about people on ______." If the answer is no, then I tend towards legalisation.

Seriously investigating drug related crimes over violent crimes is absolutely disgusting.

[Matty]

Seriously investigating drug related crimes over violent crimes is absolutely disgusting.

I agree entirely.

I actually watched a documentary a while back at why the governemnt chooses to keep it illegal; it's actually more profitable that way. There's a HUGE money making scandal behind "The war on pot"; and that's why it will probably never be legalized.

Even decriminalization came close in Canada once or twice, but the idea was thrown out the window by the massive backlash from other politicians. I don't think either legalization, or decriminalization will come about until greed fades away.... but it could be a LONG wait; so pack some snacks.

[BluGru Mitsuo (Tori)]

im inbetween because some pot can help people with cancer but some is not so im in the middle so i have no response so i just voted!!!! :D

[sataned]

i say pot should stay illegal. let em troll the pot heads as long as possible.

[Jasanime]

It should certainly be legal. It is a medicine which can help all sorts of diseases, and it's much safer than alcohol. I mean it's a plant! Totally natural. And if it were legal it could be policed much better and would be harder for kids to get hold of, and much less money going to dealers and bikies.

[Princess Cupcake]

It's a mystery to me why marijuana is illegal in the first place. I am not afraid to admit that I smoke it on a daily basis (mainly to relieve stress and inspire my art). Government authorities would treat me like a criminal and society will turn me into an unfavorable cliche, but in the end, it's not worth punishing and doesn't deserve such a bad reputation. If marijuana were to be legalized, it would most likely be taxed and controlled by the government. I don't like this idea, however, it would generate revenue and save money spent (or should I say wasted) on prohibiting it.

[CrimsonMoon]

No, don't legalize pots. They're evil, just as much as cigarettes and alcohol.

[BluGru Mitsuo (Tori)]

i would say im in between still because just say if some child has 7 days to die and they need weed to help them just get the weed liqid bottole of weed, sorry cant spell well today!! D:

[Hakoshi]

Why doesn't this poll have an "I don't care much" thing xDD
anyways, I really don't care much, it would have good sides and bad sides (the lists!!! -brick'd-)
Reasons why it should
1. More money for stores that sell it... yay money
2. Less of this drug dealing nonsense around.. geebus, I hate to look out my window and see 2 suspicious people trade cash in for a white small bag...
3. Less nitwits would get arrested for just having it around

now for bad reasons..
1. Adults would buy it, and then give it to the idiotic 16 year old who gave him the cash to buy.. just like cigarets ..
2. More pot heads would be made if its easier to get

more good reasons then bad but there might be more who knows lol

[Explorer Oak]

How did i miss this thread?! But im not shure what to think of it, i dont have my facts straight and to many people convince me either it's the anti-christ or an herb sent from heavan. All i know is that i like to smoke it every now and then.

[Princess Cupcake]

just say if some child has 7 days to die and they need weed to help them just get the weed liqid bottole of weed
What the hell are you talking about? :mellow:

[Rylingo]

How did i miss this thread?! But im not shure what to think of it, i dont have my facts straight and to many people convince me either it's the anti-christ or an herb sent from heavan. All i know is that i like to smoke it every now and then.

The majority of people tend to split one of two ways
- Weed is immoral so I will find/fund anything that suggests it is dangerous to your health.
- I love weed so I will find anything that suggests it has health benefits and ignore anything contrary to this.
Its a subject were severe confirmation bias is apt to run riot.

At the end of the day weed is not a miracle drug. When, used in precise dosages, can be useful to combat the side effects of chemo should it be required. Some people find it puts them in a good mood, makes them appreciate things more etc. Some people will have negative reactions to it althought they tend not to be too extreme. I had some trouble with paranoia when I tried it. Its not something I particularly enjoy because of this.

People seem to aim at current legal drugs stating they are worse, but thats not important. What is important is whether the benefits of legalisation outweigh the negatives.

For me the benefits outweigh the negatives. The largest positive form legalisation to me is the repairing of relationships between the police and the public as well as the lower number of people in prisons. Prisons are an attrocious waste of taxpayer money.
I would like a breathalizer provided to the police service to test if people are under the influence whilst driving. If I can smell weed in the air surely theres a way to create a breathalizer for this.

The world is complicated. Every legal choice ever made will cause both negative and positive effects. Weigh them. Find which side you agree with and when asked, explain it to others. Accept the burden of the negative effects of your position but explain why the positives outweigh them.

[Eleke]

Lol, my first post being in a thread about pot...

Anyway. I can definitely see some benefits for legalizing pot, but I find the need to break it down into medical use and recreational uses.

Medicinal: It's been proven time and again that marijuana has benefits in the medical community, particularly with patients who are undergoing chemotherapy treatments. One of the side-effects of chemotherapy is that patients lose all semblance of an appetite, or are unable to keep anything down. Now, what's one of the most well-known side-effects of marijuana? If you said "getting the munchies," then you win a cookie. And some cheetos. And a microwavable burrito. After smoking just one joing, people undergoing chemo treatments generally have had their appetites return and are able to keep their meals down. If not for good, then at least long enough to get some nutrition. Now, why is it (beyond the obvious, of course) that it's so important for cancer patients to be able to eat? When a person's body is going into starvation mode, their immune system is compromised. A compromised immune system means that along with fighting cancer, the patient is vulnerable to diseases that, had they had a healthier immune system, they'd be able to shrug off. And so far, there are no good legalized drugs on the market that works nearly as well, nor are as cost-efficient.

There have been other studies done indicating marijuana can help with other ailments, but more research has been done with marijuana in conjunction with chemo treatments, so that's what I concentrated on.

Recreational use: Ah, now here's the sticking point for some. Some people believe that marijuana for recreational use should be banned completely, others are all for it. Personally, I don't partake, but I'm all for others to be able to smoke it, as long as they're under the same restrictions as cigarette smokers (no smoking in restaurants, for example.) If it's regulated, taxed, and sold at your local Qwik-E-Mart, then it'd be a major boost to the economy. I don't think it'd lead to more and more people picking up smoking marijuana: it's so prevalent that it's easy to find someone to buy off of, and anyone who is interested in trying it would be able to, pretty much no matter where they live in the US.

Another advantage: most of the people in prison are in due to non-violent drug-related activities, in many cases involving marijuana. In some areas, rapists and thieves have been let out of prison early just because there's no room. Less people in prison due to marijuana = more space for dangerous criminals who NEED to be locked up.

Disadvantages: Don't be fooled - you are still breathing in BURNING LEAF MATTER deep into your lungs and holding it. That causes damage to your throat and lungs that can build up over time. Using a water pipe is slightly safer than smoking a joint, but there are still health risks. Not to mention that, like alcohol, it is a mind-altering substance. However, unlike alcohol, trace amounts can stay in your system for up to two weeks, which can make drug testing difficult. And don't give me, "Oh, it's natural! How can it be bad for you?" You know what? DEADLY NIGHTSHADE is 'all-natural,' I'd like to see you roll it up and smoke it.

So yeah, I say legalize it, but restrict it like alcohol or cigarettes. And tax the hell out of it - that'll bring some revenue in.

Just my two cents, though :P

[Munchman]

Where i live all Drugs are legal up to a certain ammount. So i could go do lines of coke in front of the police station in a windy day and the cops would have to groove on the dust...
I think all drugs should be legal in all countries... If a person wants to kill themselves they can , so why are they not allowed to do as much drugs as they want?
Totally cool with Pot tough.

[Rylingo]

I think all drugs should be legal in all countries... If a person wants to kill themselves they can , so why are they not allowed to do as much drugs as they want?

What effects do you think legalizing everything would have in food market? Could we sell food with these drugs included? What of the effect on pharmaceuticals as a whole. Once you remove a vetting system all sorts of drugs with horrendous side effects could start being prescribed for things like the sniffles.

Also you have to remember, there are a lot of stupid people out there. I remember seeing interviews with teens in the UK when a type of plant fertilizer instantly became a popular recreational drug. The problem there was that it was not safe. No where near safe. It was a potent mixture of methadrone and a ton of industrial cleaning fluids which run riot. In the interview the reporter asked one of the girls if she was worried about the dangers of the drug and the girl replied, "no because if its legal then it couldn't damage me".

[Haoie]

Yes and make it a source of tax.

[Wio]

What effects do you think legalizing everything would have in food market? Could we sell food with these drugs included? What of the effect on pharmaceuticals as a whole. Once you remove a vetting system all sorts of drugs with horrendous side effects could start being prescribed for things like the sniffles.

People are given more choices and will have to be more careful about what they buy, which should always be the case. People should be suspicious of all products which they aren't familiar with, rather than assuming something is safe because the FDA said so. This is how government intervention causes sane people to throw out their common sense. They give them a false sense of security.


Also you have to remember, there are a lot of stupid people out there. I remember seeing interviews with teens in the UK when a type of plant fertilizer instantly became a popular recreational drug. The problem there was that it was not safe. No where near safe. It was a potent mixture of methadrone and a ton of industrial cleaning fluids which run riot. In the interview the reporter asked one of the girls if she was worried about the dangers of the drug and the girl replied, "no because if its legal then it couldn't damage me".

Oh god, if we have to make laws with these kinds of people in mind, I'm not sure if we can keep fishing rods and gasoline legal.

[Samuru]

No, don't legalize pots. They're evil, just as much as cigarettes and alcohol.
I find this very shortsighted, as pot is, without a doubt, the product with the least amount of lung/liver pollution in it.

I think this should be legal, as the government can tax it (like here in Holland). We also have a law you can only buy a few grams of it per time period, so no one can really become an addict. But of course, while high, driving should be prohibited as it limits your response skills.

[CrimsonMoon]

I find this very shortsighted, as pot is, without a doubt, the product with the least amount of lung/liver pollution in it.

I think this should be legal, as the government can tax it (like here in Holland). We also have a law you can only buy a few grams of it per time period, so no one can really become an addict. But of course, while high, driving should be prohibited as it limits your response skills.

Pots may have the least amount of lung/liver pollution as you say, but that doesn't overrule that they have side effects on our body. Chances are even though it's made legal and with limited amount per time, there will be drug addicts who will illegally obtain more dosage than is necessary. I've also heard that drug usage per person will increase over time.

Probably it's just me, but I keep thinking about the drug abuse and drug wars from movies that I watched, so I've always thought that pots are evil. Nothing personal, just my opinion on things.

[Samuru]

Pots may have the least amount of lung/liver pollution as you say, but that doesn't overrule that they have side effects on our body. Chances are even though it's made legal and with limited amount per time, there will be drug addicts who will illegally obtain more dosage than is necessary. I've also heard that drug usage per person will increase over time.

Probably it's just me, but I keep thinking about the drug abuse and drug wars from movies that I watched, so I've always thought that pots are evil. Nothing personal, just my opinion on things.So you take your opinion from movies. Yeah, that'll get you far. Please know the facts before posting.

Side effects? What side effects? How you can puke from a bad trip? Yeah, that happens, but it's still better than alcohol poisoning. I don't see people buying more weed as a serious problem, as people can LEGALLY obtain alcohol while they're absolutely addicted. Weed, unlike cocaine, heroin, and other stuff, has a far lower addiction rate, too.

[darkrider21]

Yes, I believe that pot should be legal. It actually helps people who are in pain or even have ADHD. Not only that, but overall it would be better for the economy if it was regulated. Not only will the government be harvesting trillions from us because a lot more people smoke it than you think. Also, it would clear out the jails/prisons to where we would not have to be paying for the cost of living for the people in there.i wonder if that would have ben better then taking ritalin when i was younger b cuz the doctors sayed i have adhd

[Creasy]

I smoked irregulary pot and I don't think that it's sooo dangerous. Look at netherlands there is pot legalized and it works.

[bug]

I never was that interested in pot. I'm not a fan of things that alter my state of mind. I do drink alcohol, but only with people I know. Anyway, marijuana is really similar to alcohol. It's perfectly safe and harmless if used right. So honestly, either ban both, or legalize both cause this is just silly.

[Kaleohano]

This is how i look at it. No one has ever come home and beat the living s**t out of their wife and kids from smoking da ganja. Cant say the same about alcohol. Yet alcohol is legal.

I personally don't smoke anymore. Military career forbids me from doing so. and i'm perfectly fine with that. However, Weed is such a small thing and so much better for you than the things that are legal such as tobacco, alcohol, spice, and the zombie bath salts.

I think there are much bigger problems in the world than some guy getting stoned at home and eating cookies while watching cartoons.

http://lolheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1339-600x525.jpg

har har har

---------- Post added at 03:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 AM ----------


Pots may have the least amount of lung/liver pollution as you say, but that doesn't overrule that they have side effects on our body. Chances are even though it's made legal and with limited amount per time, there will be drug addicts who will illegally obtain more dosage than is necessary. I've also heard that drug usage per person will increase over time.

Probably it's just me, but I keep thinking about the drug abuse and drug wars from movies that I watched, so I've always thought that pots are evil. Nothing personal, just my opinion on things.

weed is one of the only substances you can take that is classified as non-addictive.

as far as what you see in the movies, its not entirely untrue. but you gotta remember, its not the drug its self causing the problem. its the money that causes those wars. the same thing happened when alcohol was illegal. same would happen if tobacco was illegal. the drugs themselves don't cause gang wars. its always the money.

[Mugiwara-no-Basuke]

This is how i look at it. No one has ever come home and beat the living s**t out of their wife and kids from smoking da ganja. Cant say the same about alcohol. Yet alcohol is legal.

I think there are much bigger problems in the world than some guy getting stoned at home and eating cookies while watching cartoons.

weed is one of the only substances you can take that is classified as non-addictive.

You're pretty damn right!!

Alcohol is certainily the biggest home/family-breaking substance, think I don't know many cases of disrupted families, beaten wifes or sons, car-driving deaths or so due to smoking tobacco or pot, so that's what's a real problem and definetely not that stoned guy at home, which most probably won't harm anyone else.
And not being addictive it should be even less harmful (while alcohol and also tobacco are!), just alcohol is seen as a nice disinhibiting (not sure's an existing word) and therefore most useful in parties and other kinds of meetings, therefore sociable acceptable, so that's just a huge hypocrisy! And hypocrisy is a most untolerable thing for me, I'm afraid.

I had never smoked pot nor intend to do it but that doesn't matter as I think I can see the facts as pretty obvious, pot is defintely not worse than alcohol or other legalized substances, so guess it should be legalized then!

And as bug said it's just silly to allow alcohol to be legal and pot not to be, either legalize both or forbit alcohol

[Mystelinth]

Here in Holland its quite legal to smoke it, but illegal to grow the plants. Didn't hear any story about people going crazy on pot, so why not. Make it legal all over the world!!! :D

[Mugiwara-no-Basuke]

Here in Holland its quite legal to smoke it, but illegal to grow the plants. Didn't hear any story about people going crazy on pot, so why not. Make it legal all over the world!!! :D

Yeah, I know that, been in Amesterdan a year ago (though just a few weeks after getting back I heard in a Portuguese newcast that they were going to change the legislation to make it ilegal... guess they didn't, right?)

Indeed, it is as I said, hypocrisy as per example compared to alcohol, that causes a lot of direct kills every year all around the world due to the most various situations! And it's legal so by that logical pot should be too

[Howdy]

I think it should be legalized, it's being used medically to treat cancer. They wouldn't supply it to people if it were bad for you.

[Princess Cupcake]

Anyway, marijuana is really similar to alcohol. It's perfectly safe and harmless if used right. So honestly, either ban both, or legalize both cause this is just silly.

What is silly is that you just said it is very similar to alcohol because no it isn't. Alcohol is far more dangerous and harmful to one's health. The only thing they have in common would be that they are drugs which alter the state of mind. Marijuana is a naturally grown herb. Alcohol has to be brewed by humans. Marijuana has many clinical uses. You don't often hear of alcohol being prescribed to someone. Many people die from alcohol. You cannot say the same for Marijuana. Many people become physically dependent on alcohol. Marijuana addiction is all in your head. It is possible to get alcohol poisoning and black out after consuming too much alcohol. You cannot OD on marijuana. The two couldn't be more opposite.

[Chi The Sweet]

I just wish the drinking age was lower

[AnimeBboy]

I don't use it now and I most likely wouldn't use it even if it was legalized.

[Dr. Evil]

If supply is sorted out and a good roadside test is found for drivers, sure. Otherwise no.

This. However, I assume you mean for recreational purposes. I agree with that. Restrict it like tobacco or alcohol. There's already a test for finding THC levels instantly. It's a cotton swab type thing. Anywho, if it WERE legalized, I'd smoke more than I already do.

[Samuru]

I had no idea this discussion was still live? Wow, no one read my post on the first page? :/

[Hyouka]

Fucking druggie

[threewolves]

I know a lot more city ordinances are changing laws to make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

I'd have to see the pros and cons for both, but like someone else said, alcohol is legal which technically is just as bad as far as impairment of judgement as weed, so if it is, so should pot.

But at this time I am leaning towards the make it legal.

[Kaleohano]

Fucking druggie

know the difference between someone who smokes weed and a druggie.

Weed smoker (And legend!)
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/484124_405388042831545_338470689_n.jpg


Druggie
http://methwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/facesofmeth1.jpg

[elisaelisa]

I have thought about it a lot, and i mean a lot. So i could actually go on for about 20 pages of the pros and cons of it.
However i wont make it that long.
I just say that theres more pros than cons to legalizing it. Specially the ones to do with taxation and control of supply. At moment people who use it often fund mafia, scumbags or people who should not get that funding. Then at least in a way it would benefit all of us.
I think a lot of the taxes collected from it should go for treatment centres of narcotics and alcohol abuse.
At moment most of profit goes to scumbags pockets and yet governments and charities are still the ones who have to foot the bill for rehabs. That would be a worthier cause.

As i said, theres both pros and cons, but i am for legalizing it and think it should involve a lot of wrk on governments behalf.

[.:neuko:.]

In short, and although I'm not interested in smoking "pot" (or if you prefer, Marijuana, grass, dope, weed, hash, joints, reefers, buddha, ganga, Cannabis etc.), I'd say legalise it. But anyway, for the sake of the debate, here's my 2 pennies worth:

By the way, as I'm a UK citizen, my statement is based on the British government's stance on legislation of Cannabis (aka pot), and so may not exactly reflect the (presumably) American government's stance on legislation of "pot". Nonetheless, I hope my post will still be of relevance since both governments continue to make such drugs illegal and have similar views on them, but apologies in advance if this is not the case.

In reading this post, you may also notice that I make a lot of references to alcohol in addition to Cannabis. This is mostly for the sake of comparison, but also partly due to the fact that where I come from it's legal to drink alcohol whilst illegal to smoke Cannabis, which makes very little sense to me. I mean, if alcohol and Cannabis were weapons, our government would be effectively saying: "It's perfectly legal to wield a gun but not a knife", and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure which one does the greater damage.

Anyway, on with the post and firstly, my 2 points on alcohol:

Firstly, I think our government would do well to better regulate that which causes real social issues instead of giving the public an unfounded, hypocritical, insulting and fear-mongering lecture on the harmful effects of drugs such as Cannabis. By "that", I'm of course referring to alcohol, the fuel behind many social issues, including crime, poverty, retarded social development, premature deaths, accidents, and not least, overloaded public services such as A&E departments, and of course, many of which come at the expense of the taxpayer.

Secondly, there's too much an emphasis on drinking in general society in our country, and this has unfortunately resulted in national headlines such as "Booze Britain", "Britain's Booze Crisis", and "Britain: The Drinking Culture". Moreover, our government's policy of regulating alcohol is woefully inept: seemingly, it chooses to enforce effective measures only when social-level drinking poses some kind of economic threat (as is the case at the moment) or social inconvenience to its "own people" (i.e. essentially the upper class), and even then, the propositions essentially boil down to putting up the tax on the unit of alcohol. Oh goody... how comforting it is know that my taxes are being wasted on cheap "solutions" akin to the thinking of five year olds. :rolleyes:

Now for my view on Cannabis:

There's a lot of scientific evidence to suggest that Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. However, true as the evidence may be, that is to miss the point. Any psychologically influential substance can pose a threat to the user as well as those around him/her if he/she abuses it. For this reason, I would argue that yes, Cannabis should be legalised, but only if backed with effective regulation. Like alcohol, there needs to be some measure in place to penalise those who would abuse Cannabis such that they would be harmful to themselves and others. Rather than placing an added tax on the substance however (as with alcohol), I think a "driver's license" approach would fair better, although let's be clear, this would not be so much a complete solution than a necessary process. Anyway, if a person abuses their legal right to smoke Cannabis such that he/she harms him/herself or others, he/she will lose points on his/her Cannabis Licence much in the same way that a driver would lose points on his/her Drivers License through reckless driving. Since only the user would be affected here, they'd be no need to penalise everyone through unfair taxation just because a minority of people (or in this case one person) would abuse their legal rights.

Of course, in practice it's likely that Cannabis regulation could not be as simple as the approach suggested above, and like I said, it would be a "necessary process" - but in any case, the truth of the matter is, our government is not prepared to legalise Cannabis at all because it ultimately fears that such a lenience would lead to a counter-productive economy. It fears that the working class will be less inclined to go to work, pay their dues and consume in manner that can be manipulated through tax, in other words, do the very things that have long been relied upon to drive an economy that has long favoured the rich and powerful as opposed to the public in general. Much of our government's fear is founded on ignorance of course, hence the fear-mongering and cherry-picked nature of its public information on the harmful effects of Cannabis - and worse, the pretending to give a damn about public health when in fact its concealing more selfish motives. The effects of alcohol (and sorry to bring it up again) on the other hand are well known by our government, yet it does effectively nothing to address what is really a deep-rooted social problem - so much so in fact that even if it wished to outlaw drinking alcohol tomorrow it couldn't - for if it did I'm sure that beyond doubt, our drink-orientated society would crash like an asteroid to Earth, diminishing much of our national economy in the process.

[darkrider21]

I watched episode 420 on famly guy and pot legal in quahag and peter was seling pot bagies at a baseball game wow

[Eris]

Not really misc material. This topic is better suited for the Serious Talk forum. There may even be a thread like this in there.