Cannabis: Legalised or Not?

[Cal]

This is another classical debate in my choice, some people want it legalised, some dont. In all sence, cannabis is actually safer than alcohol. You can not overdose on it, there is no addiction, unless you get phsycologically addicted which takes a long time.
Legalising cannabis would help clear out jails for people that are involved in cannabis related crimes, which would help make space for the real crimanal, murder's and the rest. It would cut down money and time wasted on raiding all cannabis dealers and homegrowers. So money would be invested elsewhere. This would also be beinifical for government, once they tax the stuff, they will be stealing more money than ever.
A statistic says that in America, smoking cannabis is more popular than gonig on the internet, that is a few million smokers, or ingesters.
There is just more than one use of cannabis than personal use, clothes can be made, and much more paper is made from them than trees. So if lots of crops were made, that would help save rain forests and shit also.

This is my views, I am for legalisation of it, in my view it would benifit lots. And people who say that it is against their religion or somethin, I dont think that true, 'cus in the bible I doubt it says, if u smoke cannabis, you will go to hell. If god didnt want it on the planet, he wouldnt make it.

I've searched the forum for this topic and didnt find it, I was surprised. Tell me your views :thumb:

 

[___]

Well the trouble is there isn't a whole lot of argument on the subject. It's hard to make any rational claim that cannabis is causing any kind of harm to society that enforcement is helping prevent. You can go on and on about the negative effects of cannabis, but in the face of alcohol and tobacco being legal it sounds pretty stupid and not a whole lot of people will advocate criminalization of either of those two drugs, although there is a scary trend toward it with tobacco. Criminal enforcement is grossly ineffective both in the prevention of cannabis distribution and in the curing of 'addiction'.

I believe in decriminalization of all drugs though, and a focus on education and treatment as opposed to imprisonment and slaughter as solution to problems of addiction. Only the kinds of sick fucks who are running and actively supporting the crusade against drugs think that killing and locking up drug abusers is the solution to stopping the abuse. Of all the addicts I've met and known who would like to stop their abuse, not a single one has ever listed illegality as a reason for quitting despite the steep penalties. They just don't give a damn, they're already risking death and ruin every time they use the stuff.

 

[arcthemonkey]

But people ignoring the illegality is, in my mind, the best evidence against it.

As you should know, in the US, drugs are rated on "schedules." Schedules compare accepted medical use to potential for abuse. Note that when I say abuse, I do not mean addiction. People don't get addicted to Alcohol, but alcohol is certainly abused.

Marijuana is listed in the most restrictive category of drugs, where a doctor cannot even prescribe it, unless a specific state has a law allowing for it.

Why is it in this category? The first part is that, no matter how much you want to argue it, Marijuana has no majorly accepted medical use. The active chemical in Marijuana is a different story, but smoking marijuana is a poor way of deriving these chemicals. Heroine is made from morphine, which has medicinal purposes, but that doesn't mean that Heroine has medicinal purposes. People like to make arguements against this saying, "Hey, the proved that marijuana kills cancer!" No. They demonstrated that pure THC can reduce tumor size in mice.

Ultimately, my point here is that marijuana, as far as being smoked, has no generally accepted medicinal use. THC has accepted medicinal use.

What puts marijuana firmly into schedule 1 is its abuse potential. Again, this is not necessarily referring to addiction. The fact that so many people risk their families, their jobs, their freedom and their lives just to smoke a leaf that makes them "feel good" is undeniable evidence of abuse. If they weren't abusing it, they wouldn't take so much risk to use it.

So, being an abusable substance with no accepted medicinal purpose is why it's illegal, and why it should probably stay illegal. Don't get me wrong now, I think smoking tobacco should probably be illegal as well.

(And for the record, I understand that 1.5kg of marijuana will theoretically kill you via overdose.)

 

[Cal]

good points, I just think that cannabis is in a different league compared to probly all the illegal drugs. It is no where near as harmful as the rest and probly is less harmful to alcohol abuse.

Btw, you can get alcohol addiction. They are called alcoholics lol.

And I've never heard about the cannabis od lol. Seriously doubt anyone would be able to smoke/eat that much though. :S

 

[___]

But people ignoring the illegality is, in my mind, the best evidence against it.

The point is that illegality is having very little to no effect on controlling addicts. It does most likely have a large affect on reducing the number of new addicts. But decriminalization would not mean you can buy the stuff in a grocery store, it would mean the penalties would be civil, not criminal, and hopefully include compulsory treatment. Right now our solution is to put people in jails, which have no effective abuse treatment programs, or to shoot them if they don't go quietly, which is not really in my mind a great way of fixing the problem.

People don't get addicted to Alcohol, but alcohol is certainly abused.

People get severely chemically addicted to Alcohol, and among unregulated legal substances the damage to the body and withdrawl symptoms are some of the most severe we know of. But nobody in their rational mind wants to try prohibition again, so alcohol is set up as an example of the hypocrisy of drug policies. Basically, all of the justifications for criminality of cannabis are equally or drastically more applicable to alcohol, and the argument against criminality of alcohol is equally if not more applicable to cannabis.

Why is it in this category? The first part is that, no matter how much you want to argue it (...)

I for one am not advocating medicinal use of cannabis, just decriminalization, in other words you don't got arrested and go to jail for possession or use. Certainly there is a medicinal use, but when people talk about 'legalization' usually they mean decriminalization.

Also a correction, heroin and morphine are both opium derivatives. Heroin is not typically made from morphine, and IIRC Heroin is a natural derivative where morphine is synthetic.

What puts marijuana firmly into schedule 1 is its abuse potential. Again, this is not necessarily referring to addiction. The fact that so many people risk their families, their jobs, their freedom and their lives just to smoke a leaf that makes them "feel good" is undeniable evidence of abuse. If they weren't abusing it, they wouldn't take so much risk to use it.

Cannabis is in schedule 1 mostly because of false propaganda and a racist agenda that dates back to the 30s when border states needed a good excuse to drive out foreign national laborers during the depression. They figured mexicans used cannabis a lot, so they could arrest, imprison, and kill them if they made it illegal. It's really more complex than that and there are a lot of factors involved, but none of them had anything to do with addiction, abuse, or social danger.

(And for the record, I understand that 1.5kg of marijuana will theoretically kill you via overdose.)

1.5kg of THC, possibly. The LD50 of THC is obscenely beyond the point of possible consumption. There has never been an overdose or death caused by THC in all of recorded history. Other cannabis related deaths happen, such as people getting shot by cops, and maybe lung cancer (though there haven't been any studies that have showed that).

Please consider the following:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3381
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html
http://www.marijuana-info.org/

Two of those sites advocate decriminalization and medicinal use, two of those sites provide the opposing point of view. All four are sane and provide facts with varying amounts of bias. I selected them for lack of unfounded statements, propaganda, and moral agenda (though the top two are lobbyist organizations). You'll notice that there is still a lot of debate on some of the specifics, but little compelling evidence can be provided that criminal penalties are an effective solution to the problem.

------------

The big point is we spend billions of dollars every year jailing and killing people who use drugs. This has not been shown to significantly impact drug abuse or get people on the path to recovery. Advocates of decriminalization would like all that money to be spent on treatment and education, which has been proven more effective in many other countries than our drug policy in America. Many decriminalization advocates have no interest in using drugs themselves, we just don't like seeing people maimed and killed and money wasted because rabid moralists believe "sinners" need to die or be removed from society. Drug abuse *is* treatable, just not by bullets.

 

[Faeroe]

People don't get addicted to Alcohol, but alcohol is certainly abused.

Yes you do. If you have a physical addiction, you get delerium tremens (DTs) from suddenly withdrawling alcohol.

 

[holloway]

As you should know, in the US, drugs are rated on "schedules." Schedules compare accepted medical use to potential for abuse. Note that when I say abuse, I do not mean addiction.

And alcohol and tobacco are legal...why?

People don't get addicted to Alcohol, but alcohol is certainly abused.[/quote
Pure bull. My uncle died from addiction to alcohol- you saying he wouldn't stop drinking, even after liver failure, because he thought it was a good kick?

Ultimately, my point here is that marijuana, as far as being smoked, has no generally accepted medicinal use. THC has accepted medicinal use.

People with terminal illnesses or lifelong painful conditions would argue otherwise. What would you rather they do, smoke weed or be put on perscripted painkillers which they become addicted to and in the long run can't hope to sustain?

So, being an abusable substance with no accepted medicinal purpose is why it's illegal, and why it should probably stay illegal. Don't get me wrong now, I think smoking tobacco should probably be illegal as well.

And alcohol? And, for that matter, white bread?

(And for the record, I understand that 1.5kg of marijuana will theoretically kill you via overdose.)

As was pointed out, thats 1.5kg of THC. If you can consume that much you'd be too high to breath to be honest (and a god for even getting close to that level of consumption. Thats like 60 regular joints in 15 minutes).

 

[___]

As was pointed out, thats 1.5kg of THC. If you can consume that much you'd be too high to breath to be honest (and a god for even getting close to that level of consumption. Thats like 60 regular joints in 15 minutes).

As a matter of fact even pure THC consumed in pill form can't physically be absorbed fast enough to reach lethal levels. You will go unconscious long before you will reach harmful levels. The only theoretical way to get that much THC in you would be to purify it and get someone else to inject it, and you would likely die of your veins bursting from pressure before you had a chance to overdose (I can't back that one up but I imagine your circulatory system couldn't handle the introduction of 1.5kg of material). It's literally thoroughly physically impossible to kill yourself with THC, it's simply not potent enough.

And alcohol and tobacco are legal...why?

The usual argument is the evils caused by criminalization of currently unregulated drugs far exceeds the evils caused by their use. We learned this firsthand during prohibition. Making things illegal doesn't make them go away, it just makes more criminals. It's like giving organized crime permission to manage an entire sector of the population. Here mafia, you get to meet the demand for alcohol in our country. Here drug cartels, you can handle the potheads. Here terrorists, you can supply people with firearms. Note I know you're on my side, Silent Alarm, I'm just elaborating on your point.

Keep in mind there are a whole wide range of drugs that are currently in popular use. Tobacco and alcohol are the most common examples because they have provable negative effects and are chemically addictive. Caffeine is the other big one, and what's scary about caffeine is that it's put in all kinds of things that aren't advertised as stimulant substances ostensibly for "flavor." But many things from pep pills to relaxing teas to chocolate to turkey (yes, turkey, the meat) contain substances that affect the mind and body.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Okay, I need to explain my statement about Alcohol Addiction. Chemical dependance on alchol requires extreme abuse in the first place. You can't get addicted to alchohol in the sense that if you drink a couple beers one day, you are REALLY unlikely to become addicted. This is at odds with things like, again, heroin, which can get you addicted after your first use and cause a chemical dependance in fewer than 3 days. I had assumed you would have known this is what I meant.

The 1.5kg LD50 I quoted is for orally administered marijuana, at 5% THC content, and just because no one has overdosed doesn't mean it's not possible.

We can go ahead and listen to the arguements of terminally ill patients all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that the FDA recognizes no legitimate medicinal use. Also, this arguement is a bit bullshit anyway. I live in Oregon, and know 7 people with MM cards. ONE of them actually has an excuse for it, and she says it doesn't work very well anyway.

Finally, for those of you who constantly bring up alchohol and tobacco, just shut up, please. Go look up a little thing called prohibition. They TRIED to outlaw alcohol, but it was so ingrained into our culture that doing so is impossible. Your snarky comments do nothing to change the fact that marijuana and tobacco/alchohol are in completely different leagues.

Also, I seriously doubt the current scheduling of Marijuana has anything to do with Mexicans. If it did, it would have been rescheduled long ago. The burden of proof is on the lobbiests, and their arguements are falling short.

Edit: Chemically speaking, Heroin is a morphine molecule with a diacetate molecule attached. They may both be made from opium, but Heroin is composed partly of Morphine.

 

[___]

Okay, I need to explain my statement about Alcohol Addiction. Chemical dependance on alchol requires extreme abuse in the first place. You can't get addicted to alchohol in the sense that if you drink a couple beers one day, you are REALLY unlikely to become addicted. This is at odds with things like, again, heroin, which can get you addicted after your first use and cause a chemical dependance in fewer than 3 days. I had assumed you would have known this is what I meant.

Addictive power is a very important factor in drug use. I wouldn't deny that. However addictive power fails as an argument against cannabis use, unfortunately.

The 1.5kg LD50 I quoted is for orally administered marijuana, at 5% THC content, and just because no one has overdosed doesn't mean it's not possible.

Much better, that I can actually call a useful statement and obviously invalidates our arguments So the question now is whether a person can consume 1.5kg of cannabis, and whether they can absorb the THC from that fast enough to overdose. I'm pretty sure it's possible to consume it theoretically; whether you'd want to, questionable; whether your digestive system will work fast enough, I don't know at all.

I live in Oregon, and know 7 people with MM cards. ONE of them actually has an excuse for it, and she says it doesn't work very well anyway.

I lived in California till a month ago. I knew 4 people with MM cards. One was suffering chronic pain due to a foot injury sustained while in the army. He said cannabis was more effective in reducing his pain than other medications he had tried, including most of the common home-use prescription narcotics. He tried the THC pills, said they made him feel uncomfortable compared to smoking or eating the plant. He was concerned by the level of impairment he felt at a useful dosage; however he said he felt less impaired than by a similar dosage of other pain killers, and that the side effects were generally less severe. The other three people I didn't know as well, but two said they found the pot to be the most effective treatment. One still did not like to use it because she didn't like the example it set for her children, and would use it secretly because it worked better than the medications she used while around the children. Both our stories are anecdotal. I'm not focused on medicinal use; however,

that doesn't change the fact that the FDA recognizes no legitimate medicinal use

Where the FDA fails to recognize science, I fail to recognize the FDA's use as a scientific authority.
See: http://www.drugscience.org/lib/links.html
Show me the FDA's extensive studies to the contrary if you like, I can't find them.

Finally, for those of you who constantly bring up alchohol and tobacco, just shut up, please. Go look up a little thing called prohibition. They TRIED to outlaw alcohol, but it was so ingrained into our culture that doing so is impossible. Your snarky comments do nothing to change the fact that marijuana and tobacco/alchohol are in completely different leagues.

The same exact argument is made for decriminalization: Cannabis use is so ingrained in our culture that the harm to society caused by the "war" is greater than the harm caused by the chemical itself. This isn't a "snarky comment" this is backed up by scientific study and comparative policies in other countries. This was outlined in some of the links I posted. I'll directly cite if you prefer.

Also, I seriously doubt the current scheduling of Marijuana has anything to do with Mexicans. If it did, it would have been rescheduled long ago. The burden of proof is on the lobbiests, and their arguements are falling short.

Doubt if you like; the lobbyists provide their proof and it falls short because of willful ignorance like yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#Legality
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
http://www.bisdro.uni-bremen.de/boellinger/cannabis/03-zimme.pdf
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003700.html
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm

The National Geographic Channel has also run a series of documentaries on drugs. One was on cannabis. It backs this claim up perfectly. It included video, audio, and newspaper articles from the time. You can call the National Geographic Society a bunch of pot smoking hippies who don't know history from fiction if you like.

Choosing to ignore history that doesn't agree with your beliefs is your right but it doesn't make you right.

Edit: Chemically speaking, Heroin is a morphine molecule with a diacetate molecule attached. They may both be made from opium, but Heroin is composed partly of Morphine.

I'm sorry, I assumed you were implying that people steal morphine and make heroin out of it or something, not that they are chemically similar.

 

[Mush]

This is my Subject:yes: :yes:

Well Weed is better then Alcochol you're calm and nothing can bring you to exploding and should be legalized in every country and vodka should be illigal :D :D

but something happend to me that I want forget
I was driving home from work with a one blunt and 1g. weed in my car and anyone who should look in my car could see that ohh yeah and I was high
near my house I was held down by the plice they saw my weed and done that drug test
but the drug test said I didn't take anything but like I said I was high
but when few of my friends was drunk the test shows how much Alcochol they took

it's just funny those drug test don't prove shit :yes: :yes: :yes:

and ohh one more thing

Legalising cannabis would help clear out jails for people that are involved in cannabis related crimes, which would help make space for the real crimanal, murder's and the rest.

I got only one week in jail when they got me 3rd time
(I don't know what should I learn for one week in jail)

any way weed is great helping me get some graphics done and giving me ideas for my games:yes: :D

I love it and I'm addicdet

 

[Roman Candle]

Let me start this off by defining some of what I think about substance control, and what should and should not be the case in the world.

First, I believe that people have the right to do what they want to themselves. A substance should only be banned if it could be shown that any use of that substance would be irredemably irresponsible. Personally I feel that cigarettes fall into this category, but good luck banning that.

Secondly, I believe that the the duty of the government is to carry out measures which are effective, not ones which aim at moral superiority. So if legalising something leads to a better situation in all respects, but the government disagrees with legalising that thing, then it should be legalised. If a ban does more harm than good, then that ban should be repealed immediately.

As a balence to my first point, while I believe that adults have the right to get as drunk and stoned as they like, children do not have this right. In fact, the government has a duty to stop them from going into excess, (too often). I consider the situation with alcohol almost ideal. It is against the law for children to drink. However, I don't think it was ever intended that no person under 18/21, (depending on locality), should ever take a sip of alcohol. With the law as it is, shops are restricted from selling bottles and bottles of alcohol to minors, since if they do they will be reported and their license revoked. However, (until very recently, and I don't consider it a positive trend), no one would report an off-license for selling a sixpack to a seventeen year old. Likewise, you can have a drink or two in a pub, if under age - but only as long as you are responsible, since otherwise the pub will ask you to leave and not serve you, rather than risk losing its license. In this way, positive drinking habits are taught.

Having said all of this clearly, it's a lot easier to make a decision on this topic. Is there evidence that cannabis has detrimental effects to the extent that any use is irredemably irresponsible? No. It is not addictive. It is not possible to overdose on, (arguments to the theoretical possibility of this are irrelevent to the legalisation argument - painkillers and water are both easier to overdose on). It has almost no toxicity. Contrary to what has been said, cannabis does have legitimate medical uses, (whether or not government appointed doctors say so is meaningless. How many years of Bush-administration 'science' will it take for people to get to grips with this?). If you think otherwise when you're old and arthritic, and all your prescribed medication makes you nausious and disorientated. Yes, pensioners with arthritis are the largest group of people who claim medical useage rights. But who knows, maybe they're just thrill seeking hooligans.

Links made between schizophrenia and cannabis deserve their own paragraph. BAD SCIENCE! Yes, there is a very strong corrolation between schizophrenia and cannabis use as a teenager. But, as any scientist worth his degree can tell you, (and hopefully anyone vaguely educated), a stasticial corrolation does not prove or imply a causative relation. Just stop and think - would you be suprised if latent schizoprenics often had heavy useage of a drug commonly used to relieve anxiety and stress? A corrolation is shown for all drugs - a quick Google comes up with this one for cigarettes. No one is suggesting that nicotine causes psychosis, I see. This evidence does not give an argument for banning cannabis for everyone for always.

However, since we're dealing with people's minds and lives here, it's always best to be safe. Even ignoring that correlation, it is fairly obvious that any frequent substance use in people who's minds and brains are still developing is not clever. A small degree of short-term memory damage is observed in long-term users, for instance.

This is all very ironic, given the current laws. Someone pointed this out to me a couple of years ago, and it changed my ways of thinking immediately. It was this: It is easier for a teenager to get hold of an ounce of hash than of a bottle of wine. Pow. Why it didn't occur to me earlier, I don't know. But by making cannabis illegal, the government limits its own methods of control to arrests of dealers - hideously inefficient. Dealers sell indicriminately to children and adults alike, whereas with alcohol, the government has the power to revoke the licenses of people who they have endorsed to serve people. Thus they have far more control over the sale of alcohol than if it were illegal.

The reason that the police cannot eliminate the dealers is that they have the support of the people and that cannabis is already accepted in the culture. However, that money goes to people selling hard drugs and finances other crime. Given what I said earlier about practical law over moral, even if it is 'wrong' for adults to smoke cannabis, the government is obligated to legalise it if it results in more control and more moderate use. If cannabis is legalised and sale is licensed, then this is the situation which would occur:
People buy less from dealers, for good reasons:
1. A level of quality is certified
2. The cannabis is guaranteed not to have been laced or cut
3. The cannabis is given a definite strength. The government can regulate acceptible strengths.
4. The transaction takes place in a much safer environment.
Dealers stop selling cannabis since their market has declined.
Children do not have that easy source any more.
At the same time, licensed shops won't serve them for the same reasons they won't serve alcohol.
Happy ending.

I agree that cannabis can have detrimental effects, on children. However, the only solution to this is to take greater control over the sale of cannabis. The best way to do this is to legalise and regulate, for the reasons given above. Of course, it would help if the government held some discussions over the topic that weren't pathetically biased, and stopped trying to aim propaganda at children which is so alarmist that it cannot be taken seriously. Above 18 there is no good evidence for detrimental effects to the extent that cannabis warrents a ban. In fact, it promotes calmness and contemplation, and is an excellent stress reliever.


@Mush
For God's sake, you drive stoned? Don't you notice that slight p) reduction in relfexes which could get you and other people killed?

 

[arcthemonkey]

Addictive power is a very important factor in drug use. I wouldn't deny that. However addictive power fails as an argument against cannabis use, unfortunately.

I don't recall using this as an arguement against cannabis use, but as a source of contrast. However, even one of the websites you cited as being reliable and having no uncited material states that people can become addicted to Marijuana.

Where the FDA fails to recognize science, I fail to recognize the FDA's use as a scientific authority.
See: http://www.drugscience.org/lib/links.html
Show me the FDA's extensive studies to the contrary if you like, I can't find them.

I suggest you seek out the many statements and reports from the FDA about this very topic. You like to imply that there is something of a scientific consensus that marijuana has valid medicinal use, when the reality is that the studies don't all agree with each other, and therein lies the heart of this debate. The groups that state that there are no studies that fail to support the marijuana cause are the same groups who encourage woman to go ahead and continue smoking pot while pregnant. If these are the conclusions they are drawing, there is a serious problem here.

The same exact argument is made for decriminalization: Cannabis use is so ingrained in our culture that the harm to society caused by the "war" is greater than the harm caused by the chemical itself. This isn't a "snarky comment" this is backed up by scientific study and comparative policies in other countries. This was outlined in some of the links I posted. I'll directly cite if you prefer.

This has no bearing on the fact that making alchohol illegal would have far greater repurcussions - to an almost epic scale - than would keeping marijuana illegal. It's tangerines and grapefruits, as it were.

Doubt if you like; the lobbyists provide their proof and it falls short because of willful ignorance like yours.

Cute. If the fact that I don't back up every one of my statements with a dozen .com links and blogs means I'm willfully ignorant, I guess I have no excuse. I am not the one who makes these decisions, and I'm not required to account for the evidence or lack thereof, and frankly, I'm not interested on spending hours researching my forum posts today - I've got homework to do.

Assaulting me personally is doing wonders for your credibility.

Edit: Replace most of my references to FDA to the DEA. I got my acronyms scattered.

Edit: I also want to point out that like 35 willfully ignorant states have legalized medical marijuana, rendering many of you implications of conspiracy useless. This is doubtful to controls being removed from Marijuana completely though. You will probably always need some nasty Glaucoma for it, and a prescription.

 

[___]

Spoiler: @Arc

I don't recall using this as an arguement against cannabis use, but as a source of contrast. However, even one of the websites you cited as being reliable and having no uncited material states that people can become addicted to Marijuana.

We should make the distinction between chemical dependency and psychological addiction at this point. Most dangerous addictive drugs cause a chemical dependency. THC has not been observed to do that; however psychological addiction does happen, in the same way it happens with food, television, internet porn etc.

I suggest you seek out the many statements and reports from the FDA about this very topic. You like to imply that there is something of a scientific consensus that marijuana has valid medicinal use, when the reality is that the studies don't all agree with each other, and therein lies the heart of this debate.

If you feel that the debate is about medicinal use; I don't care about medicinal use, but it's an interesting subject. I care about decriminalization and treatment as a system for dealing with drug abuse.

The groups that state that there are no studies that fail to support the marijuana cause are the same groups who encourage woman to go ahead and continue smoking pot while pregnant.

You are welcome to your point of view, however many of the groups who provide evidence in support of decriminalization and medical use in fact strongly discourage use during pregnancy, while operating a vehicle or dangerous machinery, etc. If you actually read what they had to say, you would know that. Instead you make assumptions about their motivations and backgrounds that are simply not true. I did look for some statements by the FDA about any studies they had done; I didn't find them. They might exist, but they're not well publicized. Two of the original sources I quoted were links to government agencies, which surprisingly have findings that don't agree with the FDA's classification of marijuana. In fact the father of the Marijuana Tax Law, Harry Anslinger, personally rejected the first government commissioned scientific study on the effect and impact of cannabis when it didn't conclude that there was a need for legislative action.

Edit: Equally applicable to the DEA.

This has no bearing on the fact that making alchohol illegal would have far greater repurcussions - to an almost epic scale - than would keeping marijuana illegal. It's tangerines and grapefruits, as it were.

The repercussions of criminal marijuana laws are billions of dollars of taxpayer money gone to waste, thousands of otherwise productive and law abiding citizens doing jail time, hundreds of deaths due to crime and enforcement related violence, etc. This is very similar to the repercussions that prohibition saw. Studies to this effect are contained in one of the links I posted above that you're not interested in reading.

Cute. If the fact that I don't back up every one of my statements with a dozen .com links and blogs means I'm willfully ignorant, I guess I have no excuse.

I linked those websites because they contain a good rundown on the historical evidence, not because I thought they looked pretty. I originally simply made a statement, like you do; when you said you doubted it, I was obliged to back it up. You chose to not look at them and continue to deny that cannabis bans have anything to do with a history of racism, but are not willing to back that up. Besides that you didn't even have to click a link to read the statement about the NGC documentaries, which I notice you tactfully avoided commenting on.

I call you willfully ignorant because you are not interested in supporting evidence that goes contrary to your beliefs, not because you're not interested in providing your own evidence. That is exactly the definition of being willfully ignorant.

Assaulting me personally is doing wonders for your credibility.

I take your sarcastic, dismissive, and often ignorant comments rather poorly. I am willing to admit when I am wrong. I already have to your points at least twice. When I point out where you are wrong, you ignore it, dismiss it, deflect it, claim you can't be bothered to look into it, or change the subject. I have backed up my point of view; the burden now rests on you to either look at the evidence and counter it or accept that you're incorrect, or to withdraw your statement pending further examination.

@Roman Candle:
Very effective points about practical law. I do question whether it'd be okay for minors to walk into a pub and have a drink though :D Ultimately it's the parent's right and responsibility to make that decision, in my opinion. If a guy wants to share a beer with his teenager for the sake of encouraging responsible drinking, that is his prerogative. If he doesn't think his kid should have access to alcohol, he should be empowered to enforce that, and giving the kid limited access outside the home would undermine that.

@Mush:
Jesus man, please don't drive while stoned. Just because it's not as impairing as booze doesn't mean it's not impairing. I don't mean to attack you, but I beg you reconsider that one. Be an example of a responsible user if you want to advance your cause, otherwise you end up undermining yourself

Edit @Arc's edit:
The "willfully ignorant" comment was aimed directly at your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the history and organizations involved in the argument in a meaningful way, not the anti-cannabis side of the argument as a whole. "Willfully" because I'm trying to provide some material that you're not interested in, but you're also not interested in withdrawing which to me demonstrates an active desire to hold ignorant beliefs. It's less an insult and more an observation though I won't claim that it's without emotional context in that I find it extremely frustrating, but please don't put words in my mouth.
Also note I have no thoughts of conspiracy. I believe that individuals have (sometimes innocently) made wrong decisions in the past, and innocent ignorance along with stubborn politics and an inability to admit the mistake have created our current situation. Not a vast global conspiracy to oppress potheads. Close confidants of Mr. Anslinger himself have said that he admitted there was little point in pursuing cannabis legislation, but he buckled to political pressure from border states and moralistic movements. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was obliged to back its legislation up with action, which resulted in the first wave of (utterly ridiculous) misinformation and set the stage for the (notably more sane) rest of it. Recent changes to cannabis policies show an admission of that and interest in right progress. However they unfortunately still do not address our lack of effectiveness in treating drug abuse in this country.

 

[Cal]

I have no evidence to back this up, 'cus I cant be arsed to search for it, but supposedly the cotton industry is also, helping to keep it banned, because you get such great quality clothes off hemp. I've seen some hemp clothes and they aere extremly comfy, but thats the same, with any high quality clothes.

 

[Mush]

@Mush:
Jesus man, please don't drive while stoned. Just because it's not as impairing as booze doesn't mean it's not impairing. I don't mean to attack you, but I beg you reconsider that one. Be an example of a responsible user if you want to advance your cause, otherwise you end up undermining yourself

well let me say it this way when I was makeing the driving licenze I was at every driving lesson high I learned driving high

now that's somthing bad about weed you have more ideas and few people learn faster when they are high but when you're not it's like your brain ain't working

and besides driving high is safer than driving normal (I don't want to encourage people to drive high cause every person has different feelings and other thing when they are high)when you're high you'll drive slow and look at everything cause you are scared (most won't admit you that) and don't want to kill somebody or your self

ohh and yeah the police held me down cause I was too slow:yes: :D

but that has anything to do with legalizing it
they should legalize it cause it's just better than alcochol and smokin cigarttes is just throwing away your money
me personaliy don't smoke more that 2 joints a day or one blunt but cigarettes I need to smoke every 2 hours it's sick

so if cigarettes and alcochol are legal y wouldn't be cannabis
and the gouverment would make alot of money

I need to drive to Amsterdam to smoke in peace and not hiding from the police
those people leagalized weed there and it works well you will get in only if you can prove you're over 18 no so many dealers it works

why wouldn't work in USA or Germany

 

[arcthemonkey]

Spoiler: @Arc

We should make the distinction between chemical dependency and psychological addiction at this point. Most dangerous addictive drugs cause a chemical dependency. THC has not been observed to do that; however psychological addiction does happen, in the same way it happens with food, television, internet porn etc.


If you feel that the debate is about medicinal use; I don't care about medicinal use, but it's an interesting subject. I care about decriminalization and treatment as a system for dealing with drug abuse.


You are welcome to your point of view, however many of the groups who provide evidence in support of decriminalization and medical use in fact strongly discourage use during pregnancy, while operating a vehicle or dangerous machinery, etc. If you actually read what they had to say, you would know that. Instead you make assumptions about their motivations and backgrounds that are simply not true. I did look for some statements by the FDA about any studies they had done; I didn't find them. They might exist, but they're not well publicized. Two of the original sources I quoted were links to government agencies, which surprisingly have findings that don't agree with the FDA's classification of marijuana. In fact the father of the Marijuana Tax Law, Harry Anslinger, personally rejected the first government commissioned scientific study on the effect and impact of cannabis when it didn't conclude that there was a need for legislative action.

Edit: Equally applicable to the DEA.

The repercussions of criminal marijuana laws are billions of dollars of taxpayer money gone to waste, thousands of otherwise productive and law abiding citizens doing jail time, hundreds of deaths due to crime and enforcement related violence, etc. This is very similar to the repercussions that prohibition saw. Studies to this effect are contained in one of the links I posted above that you're not interested in reading.


I linked those websites because they contain a good rundown on the historical evidence, not because I thought they looked pretty. I originally simply made a statement, like you do; when you said you doubted it, I was obliged to back it up. You chose to not look at them and continue to deny that cannabis bans have anything to do with a history of racism, but are not willing to back that up. Besides that you didn't even have to click a link to read the statement about the NGC documentaries, which I notice you tactfully avoided commenting on.

I call you willfully ignorant because you are not interested in supporting evidence that goes contrary to your beliefs, not because you're not interested in providing your own evidence. That is exactly the definition of being willfully ignorant.


I take your sarcastic, dismissive, and often ignorant comments rather poorly. I am willing to admit when I am wrong. I already have to your points at least twice. When I point out where you are wrong, you ignore it, dismiss it, deflect it, claim you can't be bothered to look into it, or change the subject. I have backed up my point of view; the burden now rests on you to either look at the evidence and counter it or accept that you're incorrect, or to withdraw your statement pending further examination.

@Roman Candle:
Very effective points about practical law. I do question whether it'd be okay for minors to walk into a pub and have a drink though :D Ultimately it's the parent's right and responsibility to make that decision, in my opinion. If a guy wants to share a beer with his teenager for the sake of encouraging responsible drinking, that is his prerogative. If he doesn't think his kid should have access to alcohol, he should be empowered to enforce that, and giving the kid limited access outside the home would undermine that.

@Mush:
Jesus man, please don't drive while stoned. Just because it's not as impairing as booze doesn't mean it's not impairing. I don't mean to attack you, but I beg you reconsider that one. Be an example of a responsible user if you want to advance your cause, otherwise you end up undermining yourself

Edit @Arc's edit:
The "willfully ignorant" comment was aimed directly at your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the history and organizations involved in the argument in a meaningful way, not the anti-cannabis side of the argument as a whole. "Willfully" because I'm trying to provide some material that you're not interested in, but you're also not interested in withdrawing which to me demonstrates an active desire to hold ignorant beliefs. It's less an insult and more an observation though I won't claim that it's without emotional context in that I find it extremely frustrating, but please don't put words in my mouth.
Also note I have no thoughts of conspiracy. I believe that individuals have (sometimes innocently) made wrong decisions in the past, and innocent ignorance along with stubborn politics and an inability to admit the mistake have created our current situation. Not a vast global conspiracy to oppress potheads. Close confidants of Mr. Anslinger himself have said that he admitted there was little point in pursuing cannabis legislation, but he buckled to political pressure from border states and moralistic movements. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was obliged to back its legislation up with action, which resulted in the first wave of (utterly ridiculous) misinformation and set the stage for the (notably more sane) rest of it. Recent changes to cannabis policies show an admission of that and interest in right progress. However they unfortunately still do not address our lack of effectiveness in treating drug abuse in this country.

For the record, I at least perused evey link you posted, and read a few in-depth. I though this would be evident by me making fairly pointed references to them (one of your links has a section stating that Marijuana is harmless to pregnant women, and even went so far as to imply their babies would be improved by it). I'm very careful to at least read things before I respond. I've weighed these posts, and I stand on what I'm saying here.

I want to also make it very clear that I am not outright denying any medicinal value of marijuana (again, I drag medicine in here). Hell, I won't deny that people with Glaucoma pretty much need the stuff, although I also recognize there are much better ways of getting it than smoking it. However, I recognize that it doesn't meet the DEA criterion for medicinal value, which is pretty far removed from how I would define it.

However, I remain resolute that people who use marijuana are extremely irresponsible because it's illegal. I would feel much differently if it wasn't illegal, I'm sure, but going from Schedule 1 to decriminalized entirely is a huge leap that I believe is unreasonable to expect.

 

[Avarus]

Weed actually does have harmful effects. My mate hamish's son is like, retarded form smoking it. but, he smokes a joint a day and has been for like 4 years, so it takes freaking ages. I think that weed should be legalised.

And people are saying why is tobacco legal. Tobacco dos, like, nothing. the only difference between smoking weed or leaves and tobacco is that tobacco burns slower and doesnt taste as bad (but still tastes pretty horrible). Its the nicotine in cigarettes thats so shit, its apparantly more deadly than cyanide and arsenic combined, more addictive than heroin, and im sure you all know what im talking about when i say they suck. its like, having a shower relaxes me more than smoking a cigarette. and it doesnt taste like ash. or smell terrible. or give me lung cancer. why the hell are cigarettes legal?

 

[insomniacmg]

Weed actually does have harmful effects. My mate hamish's son is like, retarded form smoking it. but, he smokes a joint a day and has been for like 4 years, so it takes freaking ages. I think that weed should be legalised.

Nah, he would have been just as retarded if he'd never touched the stuff. It seems most have already made the point that it should be legalized and done so with more conviction then I'm willing to make at the moment. I'm glad to see that many members have their heads in the right places. :thumb:

 

[Rhazdel]

Its the nicotine in cigarettes thats so shit, its apparantly more deadly than cyanide and arsenic combined, more addictive than heroin, and im sure you all know what im talking about when i say they suck.

It's not the nicotine that is bad for you, but rather the cyanide and arsenic IN the cigarette that is poisonous (seriously, they have both chemicals in cigarettes). As for, why are they legal? I have no idea.

While I have never in my life smoked pot, for the most part, I agree with Roman Candle. It would be fine to legalize it, but I think there should be MUCH stricter laws for both alcohol and marijuana. In my opinion, it should be first offense of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or marijuana should come with an automatic suspension of the person's driver's licence for 2 years. Second offense is permanent revocation.

With very strict penalty for endangering others (for both substances), I think will drastically reduce the number of DUI, etc. related injuries/deaths. For controlled, recreational use that is moderated by the government (like cigarettes are), I think would be fine.