<!--QuoteBegin--[WHO]Them+Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, total effect ? Pot smokers now have some extra spending money (and if you don't realize that at least a *little* of that is going right back into weed, then you're an idiot). But the overall effect for the country is still a negative one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What about all the wasted (no pun intended) money on "The War on Drugs?" Do you think that the war on drugs has done anything but made the suppliers richer and gotten many federal agenyts killed for no reason? I say "no reason" because the drugs they are supposed to be stopping are still readily available to the people that want them. That money would be far better spent on: decreasing the national debt, feeding/housing the homeless, education, I could go on and on.
BTW the lethal dosage of marijuana is something like 40,000 joints in a 24 hour period.
We already have the means to distribute marijuana with responsibility, sell it via Liquor Stores and require proof of age and a license to sell it. Tax it to high (again no pun intended, well ok maybe it was intended) heaven and put that money back into the government. If there is one lesson that this country should have learned by now it is that you cannot legislate morality. <a href='http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html' target='_blank'>Just check the 18th and 21st ammendments.</a>
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--[WHO]Them+Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think we should revisit the basics here.
Net Effects of Legalization: 1. Cheaper Marijuana (which would supposedly be offset by new taxes(which apparently get funnelled into quality control)). 2. More Growers. 3. People that wouldn't have touched the stuff otherwise suddenly decide to pick up the habit. 4. The WorldWide Image of the "Stupid American" takes a blow right to the face. 5. People that make their livelihood off of growing/distributing move on to greener pastures.
So let's take a look at each...
#1: I guess that's good for the smokers. But really nobody else benefits there besides the new government employees for the quality control.
#2: Hmmm, seems like a good thing until you hit a problem of overproduction and you get a situation quite literally like the food growing farmers that are PAID by the government to NOT grow anything. If that plateau is never hit then there's no problem here.
#3: Face the facts. Smoking marijuana is worse than not smoking it. And if you make a direct correlation to cigarettes then we all KNOW that educating people just doesn't work. There's literally NO reason to smoke cigarettes (except to maybe lose weight if you're a freak about it), yet new people start every day.
#4: Even if we manage to change the internal image of the pothead. It'll make political relations all that much worse unless we manage to change that image worldwide. And I don't think that's possible, seeing as how you'll never even convince me that a pothead is living up to their full potential as a human being.
#5: Everyone is after a quick buck. Wherever that quick buck lies, it will no longer be with growing marijuana. So you basically throw the dice as to whether this will turn out good or bad.
So, total effect ? Pot smokers now have some extra spending money (and if you don't realize that at least a *little* of that is going right back into weed, then you're an idiot). But the overall effect for the country is still a negative one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Meh,
#1 I hereby question your ability to rightfully project the economical aspects of it. Quality insurance should be done by the manufactors, and all food can be intoxicated, not just hash. But of course, that would mean a million dolla fine.
#2 Yeah, let's unlegalize food. Overproduction can happen in any business.
#3 Breathing is more intoxicating than not breathing? Such drugs as hash should be dealt with resposibility and should be the user's choice. While cigarettes harms both the user and the user's surroundings. But it shouldn't be illegal unless it's directly harmful.
#4 EACH INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBILITY, if the guy wants to smoke a joint after workoff, let him, it's his choice. It shouldnt be unlegal because of prejudices.
#5 Assumptions.
Meh, I havent seen some concrete reasoning that it should be illegal
QUOTE (Xzilen @ Dec 24 2003, 09:34 PM) ----------------------------------------------------------- Wow.
Try again. There are no where near as many harmful chemicals in marijuana as there are in ciggs. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Actually one joint is roughly half a pack of cigerattes...
Guys, leagalizing weed would make it more popular, and would lower the health standards of America nationwide. -----------------------------------------------------------
=And, apparently weed is O.K if you take it in moderation. We're talking about a country that can't even EAT in moderation, let alone think along the lines about SMOKING in moderation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#1 I hereby question your ability to rightfully project the economical aspects of it. Quality insurance should be done by the manufactors, and all food can be intoxicated, not just hash. But of course, that would mean a million dolla fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=So you don't think government will not regulate weed quality? They've done so with about everything else that is consumption-related... why not weed? It would be the historical thing for the government to do. What has history told us? If government doesn't step in, all sorts of fingers and blood will get mixed in with what we eat and drink today. Besides, 'intoxicated' food wouldn't make it past the inspection line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#2 Yeah, let's unlegalize food. Overproduction can happen in any business.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=We're really thinking here. It CAN happen in any business, but when it DID happen to food, take a look at the results.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#3 Breathing is more intoxicating than not breathing? Such drugs as hash should be dealt with resposibility and should be the user's choice. While cigarettes harms both the user and the user's surroundings. But it shouldn't be illegal unless it's directly harmful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=Breathing what? Of course breathing oxygen and nitrogen is harmful to our DNA strands, but we still need it to live. Do we need hash or weed to live? I'll tell you one thing, when I explode and combust because I haven't smoked weed, I'll tell you and you can have this point. And as it hurts the person himself and possibly his surroundings, drugs become more of an unintended suicide and possibly manslaughter than 'something harmless.' And although 'breathing' the air produces the same result, it is not possible to make illegal, nor is it sensical to kill everyone by choking them just to stop people from dying to air.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#4 EACH INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBILITY, if the guy wants to smoke a joint after workoff, let him, it's his choice. It shouldnt be unlegal because of prejudices.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=I believe the point you are trying to counter involved what other people thinked, not how responsible someone is... so...
-------------------------------------------------------------- #5: Everyone is after a quick buck. Wherever that quick buck lies, it will no longer be with growing marijuana. So you basically throw the dice as to whether this will turn out good or bad. --------------------------------------------------------------
=Take a good look at alcohol. And you don't think people AREN'T after a quick buck?
EDIT: For some reason the quote function didn't work.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--[WHO]Them+Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think we should revisit the basics here.
Net Effects of Legalization: 1. Cheaper Marijuana (which would supposedly be offset by new taxes(which apparently get funnelled into quality control)). 2. More Growers. 3. People that wouldn't have touched the stuff otherwise suddenly decide to pick up the habit. 4. The WorldWide Image of the "Stupid American" takes a blow right to the face. 5. People that make their livelihood off of growing/distributing move on to greener pastures. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, lets see. You missed a few.
<b>6. Complete economic revitalization of the state of Kentucky</b>
If you are getting pot anywhere in the northeastern United States, chances are it came from Kentucky. With tobacco prices dropping, a lot of farmers are turning to marijuana to make a enough extra income to keep their farms afloat. It is speculated that marijuana is already the largest cash crop of kentucky.
Marijuana/ Hemp is quite simply the most useful plant on the planet. In fact, the primary reason that marijuana was originally made illegal was to protect the cotton industry. An acre of hemp can produce 9 times as much paper as an acre of trees, and hemp fiber makes clothing that is easier to process and has much greater tensile strength than cotton. The only reason against legalising industrial grade hemp is the fear that farmers will hide marijuana plants in their hemp farms, and if marijuana were legalised this obviously would cease to be a problem.
<b>7. Huge government savings in the judicial system, the penal system, and law enforcement </b>
There are currently more people in jail for marijuana dealing, possession, and trafficking than all violent crime combined. That's your wasted tax dollars, folks. Even if you are morally opposed to marijuana smoking, would you rather pay for marijuana users' room and board in jail than let them smoke it in their homes?
It isn't about money. Most recognize that the war on drugs was a failure.
If it was about money, then the number one economic power would be more than happy to capitalize it. The income generated on sin taxes (ie. Alcohol, Gambling, Cigarettes) subsidize huge portions of state governments.
But the majority of voters in this country are middle class and working.
The people who would vote to legalize pot, are usually on the liberal fringes and younger. These people are also those who usually vote the least during elections.
So the legalization of pot could occur, but only if the majority would allow it in a vote.
Which will not currently happen if pot is accepted only along a small, non-vocal minority.
<!--QuoteBegin--[WHO]Them+Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ Dec 29 2003, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#3: Face the facts. Smoking marijuana is worse than not smoking it. And if you make a direct correlation to cigarettes then we all KNOW that educating people just doesn't work. There's literally NO reason to smoke cigarettes (except to maybe lose weight if you're a freak about it), yet new people start every day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since we've actually admitted that *gasp* smoking causes cancer and whatnot, and have actually put some effort into education, it has had at least some effect. It has been a worthwhile venture, if not a runaway success.
I can name some reasons to smoke. 1) Stress release. Stress is extremely bad for you too, just short of the dangers of smoking. If you didn't know it was dangerous, this would be a great reason. 2) If you have a short life expectancy anyway (military in particular), there really isn't any reason to not indulge yourself. Smoking is pleasurable in the short term. 3) Image. Let's face it, this is really important to some people. The image stopped being positive a few years ago in the US (particularly Hollywood), but if you started smoking before then you're probably still doing it. 4) The urge to be "different," or a "rebel," despite how sadly common the actions are.
Obviously, those reasons don't hold up under inspection. However, they're still plenty good enough for people to do other things, and I expect that it won't change in my lifetime, if ever.
As for killing the drug war: my best hope is that someone will notice the numbers, realize that the program is making things worse, and campaign against it. Actually, I have so far found one presidential nominee that has stood up against the drug war: <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/drugwar.php' target='_blank'>Dennis Kucinich</a>. But yes, you're right FMLC: the ones who want to do the smoking are not as influencial as the opposition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can name some reasons to smoke. 1) Stress release. Stress is extremely bad for you too, just short of the dangers of smoking. If you didn't know it was dangerous, this would be a great reason. 2) If you have a short life expectancy anyway (military in particular), there really isn't any reason to not indulge yourself. Smoking is pleasurable in the short term. 3) Image. Let's face it, this is really important to some people. The image stopped being positive a few years ago in the US (particularly Hollywood), but if you started smoking before then you're probably still doing it. 4) The urge to be "different," or a "rebel," despite how sadly common the actions are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Yes, just like creating any sort of desire or necessity and fulfilling it, smoking will reduce stress, just like eating, drinking, having sex, sleeping, reading, playing games/hobbies, and in certain cases cursing/beating up your pillow/whatnot. I guess if none of these stress-reducing formulae did work, then you would probably be justified in smoking.
2) If you have a short life span, laws, rules, order, and what other people think probably will not get in your way of doing whatever the splicke you want. (BTW, long-term smoking (6 months plus) in the military isn't the brightest thing to do, as it lowers your effectiveness on the field when it comes to things that require heavy breathing)
3) Still confused what this means other than 'it used to be hip, and now people can't stop.'
4) That's right, smoking, self-mutilation, drinking, cursing, wearing 'certain' types of clothing, painting yourself in ridiculous fun fruity colors (tattoos), and joining a gang all produce rebellious attitudes. Of course you look different and unique.
---
What I'm trying to say is, you could easily do without smoking. (Unless you have 2 months to live, then you could do whatever you want and what will people do? Kill you after you've died?)
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
edited December 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--taboofires+Dec 29 2003, 05:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Dec 29 2003, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can name some reasons to smoke. 1) Stress release. Stress is extremely bad for you too, just short of the dangers of smoking. If you didn't know it was dangerous, this would be a great reason. 2) If you have a short life expectancy anyway (military in particular), there really isn't any reason to not indulge yourself. Smoking is pleasurable in the short term. 3) Image. Let's face it, this is really important to some people. The image stopped being positive a few years ago in the US (particularly Hollywood), but if you started smoking before then you're probably still doing it. 4) The urge to be "different," or a "rebel," despite how sadly common the actions are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Pfffft. Too bad your newfound relief is offset by nicotine fits. Now instead of a constant level of stress you're riding a sine wave of stress which in the bad sections of the wave will surpass the original stress. Not to mention the fact that you now have to shell out an additional $80+ a month on your new habit if you plan to smoke often enough to "relieve" yourself. And the levels of stress that are bad for you simply cannot be alleviated by a cigarette. We're talking about levels like "Omg I have to declare bankruptcy and the FBI is after me for that little bomb threat. And oh ****, I'm all out of mother freaking cigarettes!!!"
2. If you have a short life expectancy. Then an educated person would realize that the first couple weeks of smoking really blow chunks and figure out that it's a waste of your already short life.
3. This point only belongs to people that have already been smoking for a few years. My original point was about people that started smoking like, this friggin morning.
4. This is the only semi-valid reason you've provided. And I have to concede that.
Saying that these "don't hold up under inspection" is an understatement. These don't even hold up to half a second of thought. The only people that would buy into this can smoke all they want on their short bus. Specially made for "special" people.
Who said marijuana would have to be legalized in the form of ciggies? (obviously punishment for selling the smokeable stuff would have to be reduced to some sort of fine instead of jail. I assume the punishment for selling booze without a license is of the monetary kind and it seems to work well...)
I'm sure an "asthma innhalator" type thing or food/drink items containing an extract with the active compound or the active compound itself would be just as useable(possibly even something like nicotine patches could work). Then you would only have to deal with the side-effects of the only "fun" ingredient(THC) as well as not bother anyone else with nasty second-hand smoke.
<!--QuoteBegin--taboofires+Dec 29 2003, 08:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Dec 29 2003, 08:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> edit: oh, this too: it doesn't matter how bad MJ is for you if you don't smoke like a chimney. See my post on page 6 or 7. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if you do it in moderation, the long term effects will get you.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Dec 29 2003, 06:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Dec 29 2003, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, lets see. You missed a few.
<b>6. Complete economic revitalization of the state of Kentucky</b>
If you are getting pot anywhere in the northeastern United States, chances are it came from Kentucky. With tobacco prices dropping, a lot of farmers are turning to marijuana to make a enough extra income to keep their farms afloat. It is speculated that marijuana is already the largest cash crop of kentucky.
Marijuana/ Hemp is quite simply the most useful plant on the planet. In fact, the primary reason that marijuana was originally made illegal was to protect the cotton industry. An acre of hemp can produce 9 times as much paper as an acre of trees, and hemp fiber makes clothing that is easier to process and has much greater tensile strength than cotton. The only reason against legalising industrial grade hemp is the fear that farmers will hide marijuana plants in their hemp farms, and if marijuana were legalised this obviously would cease to be a problem.
<b>7. Huge government savings in the judicial system, the penal system, and law enforcement </b>
There are currently more people in jail for marijuana dealing, possession, and trafficking than all violent crime combined. That's your wasted tax dollars, folks. Even if you are morally opposed to marijuana smoking, would you rather pay for marijuana users' room and board in jail than let them smoke it in their homes? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For #6- Sure having stronger clothes etc might be nice when everyones walking around half-baked. Like someone else said, Americans can't even moderate how much we eat, let alone give them a potentially hazardous narcotic?
for #7 What exactly does legalizing fix? It cheapens things, but what about the people who obviously need treatment. Its like saying "OMG TOO MUCH PARKING TICKETS BUILD NEW PRISON FOR THEM" It just dosen't work that way
yes. too many people in this topic are assuming the only way to smoke MJ is in the form of a joint.
joints will typically contain tobacco and have a pretty detrimental effect on your lungs.
however, smoking through a bong filters the smoke to some degree and is not as damaging to lungs.
vapourisers do an even better job since they dont actually burn the weed, just heat it to the point where the active chemicals are released (smooth as air).
If investment were put into it, im sure it wouldnt be long before there came a breakthrough allowing a kind of miniture vapouriser, or as someone else suggested an 'inhalator'.
both would drastically cut the health costs of 'smoking'.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 30 2003, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 30 2003, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For #6- Sure having stronger clothes etc might be nice when everyones walking around half-baked. Like someone else said, Americans can't even moderate how much we eat, let alone give them a potentially hazardous narcotic?
for #7 What exactly does legalizing fix? It cheapens things, but what about the people who obviously need treatment. Its like saying "OMG TOO MUCH PARKING TICKETS BUILD NEW PRISON FOR THEM" It just dosen't work that way <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Everyone walking around half baked? Alcohol is legal. Is everyone walking around drunk? Marijuana is less dangerous in every respect than alcohol. It is speculated that you would have to consume 130,000 times the amount necessary to get high in order to die from an overdose. Speculated I say, because no one has <b>ever</b> died of a marijuana overdose.
Legalizing marijuana would completely eliminate the enormous costs of processing and jailing all of those 'criminals', which is billions of dollars saved <b>per state</b>. I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the 'obviously need treatment' statement. I have never heard of anyone ever needing treatment for marijuana use. I have no idea what this supposed treatment would consist of, or what it would be for. Please enlighten me.
I was going to stay out because I thought this thread was dead a month ago, but I suppose I can re-iterate the main reason for why Marijuana is and will stay illegal in the united states:
"War On Drugs"
The so called "War on Drugs" is currently running at <a href='http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm' target='_blank'>$39,226,610,500</a> the sources are cited on that website. Over 46% of drug arrests are related to marijuana. Only a small fraction of the allocated money is actually used in the field to "prevent" drugs from getting into the country. A large chunk of it is pocketed by the bureaucrats that perpetuate this so called "war." These bureaucrats would be out of a job, and out of some very easy money if marijuana became legal. So in other words, unless someone comes up with a way for these fat cats to make 20 billion dollars sitting on their arses through legalization, it will never happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Dec 30 2003, 06:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Dec 30 2003, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yes. too many people in this topic are assuming the only way to smoke MJ is in the form of a joint.
joints will typically contain tobacco and have a pretty detrimental effect on your lungs.
however, smoking through a bong filters the smoke to some degree and is not as damaging to lungs.
vapourisers do an even better job since they dont actually burn the weed, just heat it to the point where the active chemicals are released (smooth as air).
If investment were put into it, im sure it wouldnt be long before there came a breakthrough allowing a kind of miniture vapouriser, or as someone else suggested an 'inhalator'.
both would drastically cut the health costs of 'smoking'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or you could just take THC pills.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can't make the act of suffocating yourself to feel happy healthy. Ever. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is about the legality of marijuana, not the health aspects. There are plenty of legal things that are damaging to your health.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can't make the act of suffocating yourself to feel happy healthy. Ever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The placebo effect is more potent than you think.
Also, why does everyone feel the need to debunk my reasons to smoke? I already said they were all dumb, but that people use them as reasons anyway, and that's what counts. You can't really force people to think before they act (but I wish).
edit: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or you could just take THC pills. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This brings up a good point too, that I had forgetten about. The best way (health wise) to use MJ is to ingest it (some of the harmful chemicals that are in MJ smoke don't even exist until it is burned, and many of the others are simply destroyed in your stomach). Unfortunately, it requires more plant matter to get the same effect this way, and the high cost caused by it being illegal makes eating it impractical. So, if it were legal, it would be cheaper, and you wouldn't really need to subject yourself to the extra dangers of smoking it.
While the argument brings up interesting points, you fail to address the simple truth of it:
It will never be legal in the U.S. as long as it is not socially accepted.
Granted, many experiment with it, but are hesitant to admit to it (i.e. "I did not inhale").
So despite the facts of how its better than smoking, or on the same level as alcohol, the real issue is that when it comes to politics, it is a joke for a canidate to even suggest the legalization of the drug.
Perhaps someday marijuana will be socially accepted on a level that the majority of voters will consider legallizing it. But as of now, very unlikely.
Again, the issue isn't whether marijuana is good or bad, there are a lot of substances out there that are destructive and bad, but are socially accepted, therefore legal (i.e. Smoking, Gambling etc ).
Although some states with smaller, more liberal voters may legalize it (Nevada, Vermont) the federal court would strike it down amazingly quick.
<!--QuoteBegin--MMZ>Torak+Dec 30 2003, 04:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MMZ>Torak @ Dec 30 2003, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can't make the act of suffocating yourself to feel happy healthy. Ever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is about the legality of marijuana, not the health aspects. There are plenty of legal things that are damaging to your health. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Marijuana also encourages behavior that are well beyond society's norms. Also, there is slight reason to believe that it decreases work ethics, something which most of the USA happens to pride itself on.
I think the war of drugs is a total sham, but we shouldn't legalize it.
Make it illeagal to use drugs, but they should just impose fines (to generate revenue) rather than incarceration.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Dec 30 2003, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Dec 30 2003, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 30 2003, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 30 2003, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For #6- Sure having stronger clothes etc might be nice when everyones walking around half-baked. Like someone else said, Americans can't even moderate how much we eat, let alone give them a potentially hazardous narcotic?
for #7 What exactly does legalizing fix? It cheapens things, but what about the people who obviously need treatment. Its like saying "OMG TOO MUCH PARKING TICKETS BUILD NEW PRISON FOR THEM" It just dosen't work that way <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Everyone walking around half baked? Alcohol is legal. Is everyone walking around drunk? Marijuana is less dangerous in every respect than alcohol. It is speculated that you would have to consume 130,000 times the amount necessary to get high in order to die from an overdose. Speculated I say, because no one has <b>ever</b> died of a marijuana overdose.
Legalizing marijuana would completely eliminate the enormous costs of processing and jailing all of those 'criminals', which is billions of dollars saved <b>per state</b>. I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the 'obviously need treatment' statement. I have never heard of anyone ever needing treatment for marijuana use. I have no idea what this supposed treatment would consist of, or what it would be for. Please enlighten me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not everyone walks around drunk because its illogical.
Good idea, lets let rapists run free too, save some more $$$.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 08:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Make it illeagal to use drugs, but they should just impose fines (to generate revenue) rather than incarceration. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a perfectly good start. I'm pretty sure we'll get at least that far eventually, once other countries prove it successful on their own. Then, we can figure it out from there.
I still think that weed should be in the same class as beer and cigs (including punishments for acts under the influence), but I would hope we can all agree that spending years in jail for possession is a horrible prospect. The punishment does not nearly fit the crime.
edit: CWAG - Drug possession isn't anywhere comperable to rape. You know that. Trying to get people all worked up by throwing in the image of a serious crime isn't helping us find a good answer.
<!--QuoteBegin--taboofires+Dec 31 2003, 12:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Dec 31 2003, 12:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 08:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Make it illeagal to use drugs, but they should just impose fines (to generate revenue) rather than incarceration. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a perfectly good start. I'm pretty sure we'll get at least that far eventually, once other countries prove it successful on their own. Then, we can figure it out from there.
I still think that weed should be in the same class as beer and cigs (including punishments for acts under the influence), but I would hope we can all agree that spending years in jail for possession is a horrible prospect. The punishment does not nearly fit the crime.
edit: CWAG - Drug possession isn't anywhere comperable to rape. You know that. Trying to get people all worked up by throwing in the image of a serious crime isn't helping us find a good answer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, breathing in a toxin to reach an alternate state of consciousness isn't <i>serious</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, breathing in a toxin to reach an alternate state of consciousness isn't serious <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could say the same thing regarding booze though couldn't you?
You don't think it is a serious thing that people drink a toxic substance(ethyl alcohol) for the sake of reaching an altered state of consciousness? See, it works just as well... If the effects of marijuana to your brain are notably more dangerous than alcohol then I would agree it probably shouldn't be allowed, that doesn't seem to be the case however.
Alcohol also has the property of being chemically addictive, it does change your brain chemistry however so slightly even if used in moderation.
Comments
Pot smokers now have some extra spending money (and if you don't realize that at least a *little* of that is going right back into weed, then you're an idiot). But the overall effect for the country is still a negative one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about all the wasted (no pun intended) money on "The War on Drugs?" Do you think that the war on drugs has done anything but made the suppliers richer and gotten many federal agenyts killed for no reason? I say "no reason" because the drugs they are supposed to be stopping are still readily available to the people that want them. That money would be far better spent on: decreasing the national debt, feeding/housing the homeless, education, I could go on and on.
BTW the lethal dosage of marijuana is something like 40,000 joints in a 24 hour period.
We already have the means to distribute marijuana with responsibility, sell it via Liquor Stores and require proof of age and a license to sell it. Tax it to high (again no pun intended, well ok maybe it was intended) heaven and put that money back into the government. If there is one lesson that this country should have learned by now it is that you cannot legislate morality. <a href='http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html' target='_blank'>Just check the 18th and 21st ammendments.</a>
So we understand it's probably NOT a good idea to legalize weed in the US of A. What about other countries? England, Australia, France, Italy, Canada?
Net Effects of Legalization:
1. Cheaper Marijuana (which would supposedly be offset by new taxes(which apparently get funnelled into quality control)).
2. More Growers.
3. People that wouldn't have touched the stuff otherwise suddenly decide to pick up the habit.
4. The WorldWide Image of the "Stupid American" takes a blow right to the face.
5. People that make their livelihood off of growing/distributing move on to greener pastures.
So let's take a look at each...
#1: I guess that's good for the smokers. But really nobody else benefits there besides the new government employees for the quality control.
#2: Hmmm, seems like a good thing until you hit a problem of overproduction and you get a situation quite literally like the food growing farmers that are PAID by the government to NOT grow anything. If that plateau is never hit then there's no problem here.
#3: Face the facts. Smoking marijuana is worse than not smoking it. And if you make a direct correlation to cigarettes then we all KNOW that educating people just doesn't work. There's literally NO reason to smoke cigarettes (except to maybe lose weight if you're a freak about it), yet new people start every day.
#4: Even if we manage to change the internal image of the pothead. It'll make political relations all that much worse unless we manage to change that image worldwide. And I don't think that's possible, seeing as how you'll never even convince me that a pothead is living up to their full potential as a human being.
#5: Everyone is after a quick buck. Wherever that quick buck lies, it will no longer be with growing marijuana. So you basically throw the dice as to whether this will turn out good or bad.
So, total effect ?
Pot smokers now have some extra spending money (and if you don't realize that at least a *little* of that is going right back into weed, then you're an idiot). But the overall effect for the country is still a negative one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh,
#1 I hereby question your ability to rightfully project the economical aspects of it. Quality insurance should be done by the manufactors, and all food can be intoxicated, not just hash. But of course, that would mean a million dolla fine.
#2 Yeah, let's unlegalize food. Overproduction can happen in any business.
#3 Breathing is more intoxicating than not breathing? Such drugs as hash should be dealt with resposibility and should be the user's choice. While cigarettes harms both the user and the user's surroundings. But it shouldn't be illegal unless it's directly harmful.
#4 EACH INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBILITY, if the guy wants to smoke a joint after workoff, let him, it's his choice. It shouldnt be unlegal because of prejudices.
#5 Assumptions.
Meh, I havent seen some concrete reasoning that it should be illegal
QUOTE (Xzilen @ Dec 24 2003, 09:34 PM)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
Try again. There are no where near as many harmful chemicals in marijuana as there are in ciggs.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Actually one joint is roughly half a pack of cigerattes...
Guys, leagalizing weed would make it more popular, and would lower the health standards of America nationwide.
-----------------------------------------------------------
=And, apparently weed is O.K if you take it in moderation. We're talking about a country that can't even EAT in moderation, let alone think along the lines about SMOKING in moderation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#1 I hereby question your ability to rightfully project the economical aspects of it. Quality insurance should be done by the manufactors, and all food can be intoxicated, not just hash. But of course, that would mean a million dolla fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=So you don't think government will not regulate weed quality? They've done so with about everything else that is consumption-related... why not weed? It would be the historical thing for the government to do. What has history told us? If government doesn't step in, all sorts of fingers and blood will get mixed in with what we eat and drink today. Besides, 'intoxicated' food wouldn't make it past the inspection line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#2 Yeah, let's unlegalize food. Overproduction can happen in any business.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=We're really thinking here. It CAN happen in any business, but when it DID happen to food, take a look at the results.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#3 Breathing is more intoxicating than not breathing? Such drugs as hash should be dealt with resposibility and should be the user's choice. While cigarettes harms both the user and the user's surroundings. But it shouldn't be illegal unless it's directly harmful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=Breathing what? Of course breathing oxygen and nitrogen is harmful to our DNA strands, but we still need it to live. Do we need hash or weed to live? I'll tell you one thing, when I explode and combust because I haven't smoked weed, I'll tell you and you can have this point. And as it hurts the person himself and possibly his surroundings, drugs become more of an unintended suicide and possibly manslaughter than 'something harmless.' And although 'breathing' the air produces the same result, it is not possible to make illegal, nor is it sensical to kill everyone by choking them just to stop people from dying to air.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#4 EACH INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBILITY, if the guy wants to smoke a joint after workoff, let him, it's his choice. It shouldnt be unlegal because of prejudices.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=I believe the point you are trying to counter involved what other people thinked, not how responsible someone is... so...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#5 Assumptions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--------------------------------------------------------------
#5: Everyone is after a quick buck. Wherever that quick buck lies, it will no longer be with growing marijuana. So you basically throw the dice as to whether this will turn out good or bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------
=Take a good look at alcohol. And you don't think people AREN'T after a quick buck?
EDIT: For some reason the quote function didn't work.
Net Effects of Legalization:
1. Cheaper Marijuana (which would supposedly be offset by new taxes(which apparently get funnelled into quality control)).
2. More Growers.
3. People that wouldn't have touched the stuff otherwise suddenly decide to pick up the habit.
4. The WorldWide Image of the "Stupid American" takes a blow right to the face.
5. People that make their livelihood off of growing/distributing move on to greener pastures.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, lets see. You missed a few.
<b>6. Complete economic revitalization of the state of Kentucky</b>
If you are getting pot anywhere in the northeastern United States, chances are it came from Kentucky. With tobacco prices dropping, a lot of farmers are turning to marijuana to make a enough extra income to keep their farms afloat. It is speculated that marijuana is already the largest cash crop of kentucky.
Marijuana/ Hemp is quite simply the most useful plant on the planet. In fact, the primary reason that marijuana was originally made illegal was to protect the cotton industry. An acre of hemp can produce 9 times as much paper as an acre of trees, and hemp fiber makes clothing that is easier to process and has much greater tensile strength than cotton. The only reason against legalising industrial grade hemp is the fear that farmers will hide marijuana plants in their hemp farms, and if marijuana were legalised this obviously would cease to be a problem.
<b>7. Huge government savings in the judicial system, the penal system, and law enforcement </b>
There are currently more people in jail for marijuana dealing, possession, and trafficking than all violent crime combined. That's your wasted tax dollars, folks. Even if you are morally opposed to marijuana smoking, would you rather pay for marijuana users' room and board in jail than let them smoke it in their homes?
If it was about money, then the number one economic power would be more than happy to capitalize it. The income generated on sin taxes (ie. Alcohol, Gambling, Cigarettes) subsidize huge portions of state governments.
But the majority of voters in this country are middle class and working.
The people who would vote to legalize pot, are usually on the liberal fringes and younger. These people are also those who usually vote the least during elections.
So the legalization of pot could occur, but only if the majority would allow it in a vote.
Which will not currently happen if pot is accepted only along a small, non-vocal minority.
Which, in my opinion, is a pipe dream.
Pun intended.
Since we've actually admitted that *gasp* smoking causes cancer and whatnot, and have actually put some effort into education, it has had at least some effect. It has been a worthwhile venture, if not a runaway success.
I can name some reasons to smoke. 1) Stress release. Stress is extremely bad for you too, just short of the dangers of smoking. If you didn't know it was dangerous, this would be a great reason. 2) If you have a short life expectancy anyway (military in particular), there really isn't any reason to not indulge yourself. Smoking is pleasurable in the short term. 3) Image. Let's face it, this is really important to some people. The image stopped being positive a few years ago in the US (particularly Hollywood), but if you started smoking before then you're probably still doing it. 4) The urge to be "different," or a "rebel," despite how sadly common the actions are.
Obviously, those reasons don't hold up under inspection. However, they're still plenty good enough for people to do other things, and I expect that it won't change in my lifetime, if ever.
As for killing the drug war: my best hope is that someone will notice the numbers, realize that the program is making things worse, and campaign against it. Actually, I have so far found one presidential nominee that has stood up against the drug war: <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/drugwar.php' target='_blank'>Dennis Kucinich</a>. But yes, you're right FMLC: the ones who want to do the smoking are not as influencial as the opposition.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Yes, just like creating any sort of desire or necessity and fulfilling it, smoking will reduce stress, just like eating, drinking, having sex, sleeping, reading, playing games/hobbies, and in certain cases cursing/beating up your pillow/whatnot. I guess if none of these stress-reducing formulae did work, then you would probably be justified in smoking.
2) If you have a short life span, laws, rules, order, and what other people think probably will not get in your way of doing whatever the splicke you want. (BTW, long-term smoking (6 months plus) in the military isn't the brightest thing to do, as it lowers your effectiveness on the field when it comes to things that require heavy breathing)
3) Still confused what this means other than 'it used to be hip, and now people can't stop.'
4) That's right, smoking, self-mutilation, drinking, cursing, wearing 'certain' types of clothing, painting yourself in ridiculous fun fruity colors (tattoos), and joining a gang all produce rebellious attitudes. Of course you look different and unique.
---
What I'm trying to say is, you could easily do without smoking. (Unless you have 2 months to live, then you could do whatever you want and what will people do? Kill you after you've died?)
1. Pfffft. Too bad your newfound relief is offset by nicotine fits. Now instead of a constant level of stress you're riding a sine wave of stress which in the bad sections of the wave will surpass the original stress. Not to mention the fact that you now have to shell out an additional $80+ a month on your new habit if you plan to smoke often enough to "relieve" yourself. And the levels of stress that are bad for you simply cannot be alleviated by a cigarette. We're talking about levels like "Omg I have to declare bankruptcy and the FBI is after me for that little bomb threat. And oh ****, I'm all out of mother freaking cigarettes!!!"
2. If you have a short life expectancy. Then an educated person would realize that the first couple weeks of smoking really blow chunks and figure out that it's a waste of your already short life.
3. This point only belongs to people that have already been smoking for a few years. My original point was about people that started smoking like, this friggin morning.
4. This is the only semi-valid reason you've provided. And I have to concede that.
Saying that these "don't hold up under inspection" is an understatement. These don't even hold up to half a second of thought. The only people that would buy into this can smoke all they want on their short bus. Specially made for "special" people.
EDIT: Typos.
I'm sure an "asthma innhalator" type thing or food/drink items containing an extract with the active compound or the active compound itself would be just as useable(possibly even something like nicotine patches could work). Then you would only have to deal with the side-effects of the only "fun" ingredient(THC) as well as not bother anyone else with nasty second-hand smoke.
Even if you do it in moderation, the long term effects will get you.
Well, lets see. You missed a few.
<b>6. Complete economic revitalization of the state of Kentucky</b>
If you are getting pot anywhere in the northeastern United States, chances are it came from Kentucky. With tobacco prices dropping, a lot of farmers are turning to marijuana to make a enough extra income to keep their farms afloat. It is speculated that marijuana is already the largest cash crop of kentucky.
Marijuana/ Hemp is quite simply the most useful plant on the planet. In fact, the primary reason that marijuana was originally made illegal was to protect the cotton industry. An acre of hemp can produce 9 times as much paper as an acre of trees, and hemp fiber makes clothing that is easier to process and has much greater tensile strength than cotton. The only reason against legalising industrial grade hemp is the fear that farmers will hide marijuana plants in their hemp farms, and if marijuana were legalised this obviously would cease to be a problem.
<b>7. Huge government savings in the judicial system, the penal system, and law enforcement </b>
There are currently more people in jail for marijuana dealing, possession, and trafficking than all violent crime combined. That's your wasted tax dollars, folks. Even if you are morally opposed to marijuana smoking, would you rather pay for marijuana users' room and board in jail than let them smoke it in their homes? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For #6- Sure having stronger clothes etc might be nice when everyones walking around half-baked. Like someone else said, Americans can't even moderate how much we eat, let alone give them a potentially hazardous narcotic?
for #7 What exactly does legalizing fix? It cheapens things, but what about the people who obviously need treatment. Its like saying "OMG TOO MUCH PARKING TICKETS BUILD NEW PRISON FOR THEM" It just dosen't work that way
too many people in this topic are assuming the only way to smoke MJ is in the form of a joint.
joints will typically contain tobacco and have a pretty detrimental effect on your lungs.
however, smoking through a bong filters the smoke to some degree and is not as damaging to lungs.
vapourisers do an even better job since they dont actually burn the weed, just heat it to the point where the active chemicals are released (smooth as air).
If investment were put into it, im sure it wouldnt be long before there came a breakthrough allowing a kind of miniture vapouriser, or as someone else suggested an 'inhalator'.
both would drastically cut the health costs of 'smoking'.
for #7 What exactly does legalizing fix? It cheapens things, but what about the people who obviously need treatment. Its like saying "OMG TOO MUCH PARKING TICKETS BUILD NEW PRISON FOR THEM" It just dosen't work that way <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Everyone walking around half baked? Alcohol is legal. Is everyone walking around drunk? Marijuana is less dangerous in every respect than alcohol. It is speculated that you would have to consume 130,000 times the amount necessary to get high in order to die from an overdose. Speculated I say, because no one has <b>ever</b> died of a marijuana overdose.
Legalizing marijuana would completely eliminate the enormous costs of processing and jailing all of those 'criminals', which is billions of dollars saved <b>per state</b>. I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the 'obviously need treatment' statement. I have never heard of anyone ever needing treatment for marijuana use. I have no idea what this supposed treatment would consist of, or what it would be for. Please enlighten me.
"War On Drugs"
The so called "War on Drugs" is currently running at <a href='http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm' target='_blank'>$39,226,610,500</a> the sources are cited on that website. Over 46% of drug arrests are related to marijuana. Only a small fraction of the allocated money is actually used in the field to "prevent" drugs from getting into the country. A large chunk of it is pocketed by the bureaucrats that perpetuate this so called "war." These bureaucrats would be out of a job, and out of some very easy money if marijuana became legal. So in other words, unless someone comes up with a way for these fat cats to make 20 billion dollars sitting on their arses through legalization, it will never happen.
too many people in this topic are assuming the only way to smoke MJ is in the form of a joint.
joints will typically contain tobacco and have a pretty detrimental effect on your lungs.
however, smoking through a bong filters the smoke to some degree and is not as damaging to lungs.
vapourisers do an even better job since they dont actually burn the weed, just heat it to the point where the active chemicals are released (smooth as air).
If investment were put into it, im sure it wouldnt be long before there came a breakthrough allowing a kind of miniture vapouriser, or as someone else suggested an 'inhalator'.
both would drastically cut the health costs of 'smoking'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or you could just take THC pills.
This is about the legality of marijuana, not the health aspects. There are plenty of legal things that are damaging to your health.
The placebo effect is more potent than you think.
Also, why does everyone feel the need to debunk my reasons to smoke? I already said they were all dumb, but that people use them as reasons anyway, and that's what counts. You can't really force people to think before they act (but I wish).
edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or you could just take THC pills. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This brings up a good point too, that I had forgetten about. The best way (health wise) to use MJ is to ingest it (some of the harmful chemicals that are in MJ smoke don't even exist until it is burned, and many of the others are simply destroyed in your stomach). Unfortunately, it requires more plant matter to get the same effect this way, and the high cost caused by it being illegal makes eating it impractical. So, if it were legal, it would be cheaper, and you wouldn't really need to subject yourself to the extra dangers of smoking it.
It will never be legal in the U.S. as long as it is not socially accepted.
Granted, many experiment with it, but are hesitant to admit to it (i.e. "I did not inhale").
So despite the facts of how its better than smoking, or on the same level as alcohol, the real issue is that when it comes to politics, it is a joke for a canidate to even suggest the legalization of the drug.
Perhaps someday marijuana will be socially accepted on a level that the majority of voters will consider legallizing it. But as of now, very unlikely.
Again, the issue isn't whether marijuana is good or bad, there are a lot of substances out there that are destructive and bad, but are socially accepted, therefore legal (i.e. Smoking, Gambling etc ).
Although some states with smaller, more liberal voters may legalize it (Nevada, Vermont) the federal court would strike it down amazingly quick.
This is about the legality of marijuana, not the health aspects. There are plenty of legal things that are damaging to your health. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marijuana also encourages behavior that are well beyond society's norms. Also, there is slight reason to believe that it decreases work ethics, something which most of the USA happens to pride itself on.
I think the war of drugs is a total sham, but we shouldn't legalize it.
Make it illeagal to use drugs, but they should just impose fines (to generate revenue) rather than incarceration.
Tobacco - lots of harmful substances
Alcohol - makes people 'think' they are hard causing social fights outside pubs etc
Weed - err makes you high
If it was to be legalised i'd say let users only use it in their homes. And have fines like DUI.
for #7 What exactly does legalizing fix? It cheapens things, but what about the people who obviously need treatment. Its like saying "OMG TOO MUCH PARKING TICKETS BUILD NEW PRISON FOR THEM" It just dosen't work that way <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Everyone walking around half baked? Alcohol is legal. Is everyone walking around drunk? Marijuana is less dangerous in every respect than alcohol. It is speculated that you would have to consume 130,000 times the amount necessary to get high in order to die from an overdose. Speculated I say, because no one has <b>ever</b> died of a marijuana overdose.
Legalizing marijuana would completely eliminate the enormous costs of processing and jailing all of those 'criminals', which is billions of dollars saved <b>per state</b>. I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the 'obviously need treatment' statement. I have never heard of anyone ever needing treatment for marijuana use. I have no idea what this supposed treatment would consist of, or what it would be for. Please enlighten me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not everyone walks around drunk because its illogical.
Good idea, lets let rapists run free too, save some more $$$.
That's a perfectly good start. I'm pretty sure we'll get at least that far eventually, once other countries prove it successful on their own. Then, we can figure it out from there.
I still think that weed should be in the same class as beer and cigs (including punishments for acts under the influence), but I would hope we can all agree that spending years in jail for possession is a horrible prospect. The punishment does not nearly fit the crime.
edit: CWAG - Drug possession isn't anywhere comperable to rape. You know that. Trying to get people all worked up by throwing in the image of a serious crime isn't helping us find a good answer.
That's a perfectly good start. I'm pretty sure we'll get at least that far eventually, once other countries prove it successful on their own. Then, we can figure it out from there.
I still think that weed should be in the same class as beer and cigs (including punishments for acts under the influence), but I would hope we can all agree that spending years in jail for possession is a horrible prospect. The punishment does not nearly fit the crime.
edit: CWAG - Drug possession isn't anywhere comperable to rape. You know that. Trying to get people all worked up by throwing in the image of a serious crime isn't helping us find a good answer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, breathing in a toxin to reach an alternate state of consciousness isn't <i>serious</i>
You could say the same thing regarding booze though couldn't you?
You don't think it is a serious thing that people drink a toxic substance(ethyl alcohol) for the sake of reaching an altered state of consciousness? See, it works just as well... If the effects of marijuana to your brain are notably more dangerous than alcohol then I would agree it probably shouldn't be allowed, that doesn't seem to be the case however.
Alcohol also has the property of being chemically addictive, it does change your brain chemistry however so slightly even if used in moderation.
<a href='http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm' target='_blank'>Marijuana FACTS</a>
This should debunk alot of what has been said here.