Marijuana

[Peacebestill]

I’ve increased my chance of developing bladder cancer from 1 in 4167, to 1 in 3260.

At least you'll never get glaucoma.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

We've tried making alcohol illegal before. It was called "the prohibition" and it was quite possibly the single greatest thing America did to support organized crime.

That's exactly the point I was making.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

If one is for absolute freedom, that one doesn't realise that there is no freedom without the law.Just chaos. Every man for himself.Not the kind of world I want to live in.You won't like it either.

This thread isn't about absolute freedom at all. It's about the opinions on the legality of *one* substance. You want to talk about absolute freedoms, start another thread. The law, as we see with pot, is wrong. The law we have doesn't help families. People are obviously going to smoke pot whether it is illegal or not. Tax it and regulate it so that gangsters don't peddle it anymore. It's not rocket science...we learned this lesson with prohibition.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

You smoke so damn much because your an addict.The law has been in effect since the 30s. It's not like it's anything new.In the 60s pot became a cultural phenomenon.Before then it was a non issue. No one I knew even talked about it.The number of dope smokers has steadily increased since then. Now people are saying to deprive one of pot is like depriving one of air. Just isn't true.

I'm confused. You're saying pot use is increasing while it is illegal?
We've talked about this on another thread as I recall...pot isn't addictive. I smoked during my teens and early 20s and was never addicted. During some periods I smoked once a week or maybe not at all. I suffered *no* ill effects. Ever. It'd be nice if you could at least acknowledge this.

 

[JustOneWay]

At least you'll never get glaucoma.

Medical uses of marijuana include:
1. Glaucoma--
The leading cause of blindness in the U.S. is glaucoma. It is a disease characterized by increased intraocular pressure. This increased pressure damages the optic nerve and eventually leads to progressive vision loss. When smoked, given intravenously, or taken orally, cannabis, THC, and other cannabinoid derivatives have been found to reduce the vision-threatening intraocular pressure of glaucoma. However, undesirable physical and psychological side effects have been demonstrated, especially among older patients. Recently, synthetic-THC eye drops have undergone testing with the hope that unwanted side effects are reduced. Despite its beneficial effects for some patients, marijuana neither prevents glaucoma nor improves vision. In addition, there are other medications that are medical standards for the treatment of glaucoma that have few, if any side effects.

link

 

[Peacebestill]

marijuana neither prevents glaucoma nor improves vision

Neither does it prevent tongue in cheek syndrome =)



=========================

 

[susanann]

I'm confused. You're saying pot use is increasing while it is illegal?
.

Pot use HAS increased in use since it was made illegal.

Pot use has increased greatly after 1939, and it now is being used more than at any time prior to 1939 when it was legal.


Illegality has increased its use.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Pot use HAS increased in use since it was made illegal.

Pot use has increased greatly after 1939, and it now is being used more than at any time prior to 1939 when it was legal.


Illegality has increased its use.

Then it would appear the War on Drugs has been lost.

 

[susanann]

Then it would appear the War on Drugs has been lost.

The vietnam war was a huge success, compared to the War on Drugs.

Any way you want to measure it, the drug war has been a dismal failure.

Drug useage, drug arrests, drug convictions, drug imprisonment, drug availability, drug wars, drug related crime, drug raids, drug testing, are all now much higher than before the war on drugs began.

A child today, as a result of the drug war, is now much more likely to be exposed to drugs, be affected by people on drugs, than in the 1960's, or any time period prior to the beginning of the war on drugs.


Not only has the drug war been lost, there is not even any hope of ever getting back to the levels we had before the drug war was started, and no hope of ever getting back our privacy and freedom from being searched, freedom from not being drug tested, etc.


Even if we returned to sanity, some lasting effects might be with us. For example, prohibition caused lots of people to switch from being beer drinkers, to drinking hard alcohol, and even after prohibition was repealed, lots of people kept drinking hard liquor and didnt go back to beer as their main drink. Ditto with drugs. Even if we legalized it, some of the people who got started on drugs since 1970 might continue to use drugs if we made it legal.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The arguement that alchohol is worse than pot has it's merits.legal pot will not replace alchohol. You are the exception I'm afraid. However alchohol and pot together are worse than either of them separately.Adding pot to the mix does not lessen the problems of alchohol. It makes them worse.

The point is that it is illogical to keep pot illegal while alcohol is legal.

 

[susanann]

The point is that it is illogical to keep pot illegal while alcohol is legal.

Depends on how you look at it.

It IS logical, if you consider that the president, the governor, all the congressmen and senators, all the police, all the judges and prosecuting attornies -- all use the alcohol drug.


The people that make and enforce our laws, use a drug that they made legal.

If police and legislators used marijuanna instead of alcohol, then it would be alcohol that is illegal and pot would be legal.


They dont mind making some other drug is illegal, as long as their own drug (alcohol) is kept legal.


That is human nature, the evil of human nature.


Most people are not against all drugs, they are against the drugs that they personally dont use.
Some people use caffiene, others use nicotine, others use alcohol, etc.

They are all drugs.

Caffiene, alcohol, and nicotine are legal - only because too many people in our government use them.

 

[nvxplorer]

Your position is encouragement.

No, it's not.

You are for pot use.

No, I'm not.

Pot is an addictive drug.

No. it's not.

People that use will chose it over their job, the safety of their children,their marriage,their relationship with their parents.

No, they won't.

How can this be a good thing?

A strawman is never a good thing.

How can this be harmless?

In this case, as most, the strawman is completely harmless.

A man I know of who was diagnosed with bladder cancer,showed me a pamphlet the doc gave him.It stated that 88% of those with that particular type of cancer,were pot users.

Irrelevant.

Clearly it isn't harmless.

Neither is walking down the street.

The law is for our protection and should remain.

So you support a nanny state?

 

[Marek]

I haven't really been following this thread, so I don't know if this has been said or not, but what about the fact that marijuana is a mind-altering drug? Now I know that alcohol is also, but with one hit of marijuana, one can lose a significant amount of capacity to move or think (believe me, I know). In terms of alcohol, one would either have to take many drinks or drink something very strong. In the case of a very strong alcoholic drink, one could tell that it is strong and take the necessary precautions to not get too drunk. But if someone takes a hit of marijuana, not knowing its strength, they could be severly affected. I believe this is a major safety concern with the legalization of marijuana.

 

[nvxplorer]

I haven't really been following this thread, so I don't know if this has been said or not, but what about the fact that marijuana is a mind-altering drug? Now I know that alcohol is also, but with one hit of marijuana, one can lose a significant amount of capacity to move or think (believe me, I know). In terms of alcohol, one would either have to take many drinks or drink something very strong. In the case of a very strong alcoholic drink, one could tell that it is strong and take the necessary precautions to not get too drunk. But if someone takes a hit of marijuana, not knowing its strength, they could be severly affected. I believe this is a major safety concern with the legalization of marijuana.

Your claims are overstated. Marijuana is not debilitating. Marijuana is widely used, so it's legality isn't an issue in this regard. How many accidents occur because of alcohol compared to pot? There you will find your answer.

 

[Marek]

Your claims are overstated. Marijuana is not debilitating.

From my experiences, it is. Maybe you haven't tried the good stuff?

How many accidents occur because of alcohol compared to pot?

Though I'm sure there are no good statistics on this, probably not too many. This might have something to do with there being a lot less pot smokers than alcohol drinkers though.

I'm just curious; do you believe that drugs like cocaine, ecstacy, and heroin should be legal? Because if you do, then my concerns don't really apply to your views.

 

[nvxplorer]

From my experiences, it is. Maybe you haven't tried the good stuff?

Sure I have. Maybe I have better control over my mental faculties than most.

The effect from marijuana is determined by the level of THC in the bloodstream. One only needs to smoke more low grade weed to achieve the same effect.

Though I'm sure there are no good statistics on this, probably not too many. This might have something to do with there being a lot less pot smokers than alcohol drinkers though.

No, it would be painfully obvious if marijuana users were causing havoc in society. It would be plastered all over our local news reports.

I'm just curious; do you believe that drugs like cocaine, ecstacy, and heroin should be legal? Because if you do, then my concerns don't really apply to your views.

Switzerland has legalized heroin with positive results. Addiction has not increased significantly, but related crimes such as theft have decreased drastically. Heroin users who previously spent their time stealing and getting high are now working (and getting high).

Cocaine is a truly dangerous drug. I wouldn't support legalizing it for sale, but I would treat abuse as a medical problem, not a legal problem.

I don't know anything about ecstacy.

 

[Mocca]

Switzerland has legalized heroin with positive results. Addiction has not increased significantly, but related crimes such as theft have decreased drastically. Heroin users who previously spent their time stealing and getting high are now working (and getting high).

Wow, awesome. Would you like to provide a source?

 

[Nightson]

I don't know anything about ecstacy.

In it's pure form, pretty much no negativ effects. On the street with 10,000 other things mixed in, has a chance of killing you. Anoher drug that would benefit from legalization.

 

[Nightson]

Wow, awesome. Would you like to provide a source?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library%5Ctlcnr.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1727532.stm
http://www.sptimes.com/News/073101/Worldandnation/Heroin_for_addicts_wo.shtml

 

[Goatboy]

You smoke so damn much because your an addict.

Sad, but true, however I am fighting a long cold war against nicotine and one day hope to be tobacco free (well, except blunts and Cuban cigars).

Now marijuana, I can use to excess or let it pass me by, spend long periods both using and abstaining.

I ain’t addicted to pot.

And what gall you have implying otherwise.
(I mean if you had an actual argument to offer you might have taken a look at my figures instead).

The law has been in effect since the 30s. It's not like it's anything new.In the 60s pot became a cultural phenomenon.Before then it was a non issue. No one I knew even talked about it.The number of dope smokers has steadily increased since then.

Well debatable (it’s not just Americans in this discussion you know), but frankly uninteresting.

Unless your point is that pot should remain illegal because of the sixties.

You might want to try working an actual argument in there somewhere.

Now people are saying to deprive one of pot is like depriving one of air. Just isn't true.

Well one is restricting the right to life, the other is restriction of an individual’s right to self determination.

Who was it you heard claiming that these are equivalents?