Make it Legal

[Cavouku]

Oh, I saw a thing on censorship; Well, for most things, I think we should get to know about things that at least concern us. I don't think things should be censored, no, but things like what celebrity fucked what animal are things I'm not particularly interested in, and people who are interested in such things needs to go fuck their own cat.

But yes, we should be allowed to know about things that can affect us, and it should be published if viewed as such. And if we want to know other things, we should be allowed to ask and get an honest answer. Oh, but the children!

Well, if you teach your kid this from that, they shouldn't be affected by this and that. If you teach your kid not to be violent the right way(s), they're not going to go Mortal Kombat on the bully at school (to which said bully might beat them to a pulp after the kid messes up the bicycle kick). If you teach your kid about what the consequences, affects and statistics are from things like sex, and drugs, chances are your kid will be better off knowing than experimenting. Think about it, would you prefer your kid learn from you, or find out on their own?

So, on censorship and children; be a good parent and they should do alright. On censorship in general; people should tell the public what is important for them to know, and if it's not valiantly important, people should have the right to ask and be answered.

Alright, think I'm done...

 

[Cavouku]

More research needs to be done on cannabis. There is a well documented correlation of cannabis use and certain types of serotonin and nervous disorders among a segment of the population. These can cause severe and life-long disabilities.

The segment of the population is small, but it does exist, so before widespread legalization occurs, especially of any means of intake that might cause others to also be exposed unwilling (such as smoking) there needs to be some serious studies done to determine whether the correlation has a causal link, and if so, what may be able to be done about it.

I agree that with that. Just because we know some things that weed does, that don't happen to be too bad, doesn't mean we don't know about it.

More research should be done before anything, at least. We don't know enough to call it as safe as everyone is so quick to do.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

What laws do you think should be repealed?

I think cannabis should be legalised, you have about 23 times greater chance of getting cancer from cigarettes and it is not as damaging as made out, plus with a Kaleidoscope you can have endless hours of fun.

Or he's a better idea so all you damn pot smokers will stop using this as an idea: Illegalize cigarrettes.

 

[Drakmorg]

I think everyone should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't bring unwarranted harm to another person/living being other than pests because after all what's the better way of getting rid of those than killing them.

 

[Spaghetti]

It's probably best to legalise drugs and stick a stonking great tax on them. Might as well make a profit from it. The government will make a decent profit and would be a step forward in dealing with drug crime.

That's not to say people should be encouraged to use the stuff, god no. They should be treated like cigarettes - legal and expensive as hell, but looked upon with disdain.

 

[Arkzism]

gay marriage come on its not hurting anyone

 

[posom2]

Hemp and marijuana needs to be legalized. It creates a ridiculously disproportionate amount of oxygen in relation to most other plants and it grows fast as hell. With the power of pot we can fight global warming!

 

[paragon1]

yes..

snip

I agree with everything you said except the last line of your edit. First, do you really think its okay to treat religion as a monolith? Different religions forbid and allow different things. Most of them make sense. You know, like forbidding things like murder, theft, etc.
But I assume your talking about Christians in general, right? (also a pretty diverse group)
I guess I'm asking that you not treat religion(s) as a whole group with a single set of beliefs, or make the assumption that every idea those groups have come up with is bad.

no i'm going to treat religion as one big lump of horribleness for the one integral reason:
every religion with a god wants to convert people. thus the crux of religion is to "save" other people by making things illegal. abortion is to save the babbies, legislating against gays is to save everyone else (think Sodom and Gomorrah) and restricting stem cell research is to save the zygote 2 cell equivalent of a babby.

of course i'm only talking about christianity here but i could go for a while on islam's treatment of women, Hindu's manipulation of the caste system or the myriad of other problems associated with every. religion. ever. conceived.

but OT: i don't even think morality is derived from religion, simply from human sympathy and empathy. but i'll stop.

And how many Jews and Buddhists do you know that are trying to convert people? And religion also encourages people to do things. Like charity, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And I don't think morality is derived from religion either. I think it is the other way around. It's just when people get bogged down in details, or other people try twist those details to their own ends, that you get the things you seem to be thinking of.
Another thing: there seems to be a jump in your logic with "religions want to convert people therefore the crux is to make things illegal". Would you care to explain that further?

 

[inglioti]

yes..

snip

I agree with everything you said except the last line of your edit. First, do you really think its okay to treat religion as a monolith? Different religions forbid and allow different things. Most of them make sense. You know, like forbidding things like murder, theft, etc.
But I assume your talking about Christians in general, right? (also a pretty diverse group)
I guess I'm asking that you not treat religion(s) as a whole group with a single set of beliefs, or make the assumption that every idea those groups have come up with is bad.

no i'm going to treat religion as one big lump of horribleness for the one integral reason:
every religion with a god wants to convert people. thus the crux of religion is to "save" other people by making things illegal. abortion is to save the babbies, legislating against gays is to save everyone else (think Sodom and Gomorrah) and restricting stem cell research is to save the zygote 2 cell equivalent of a babby.

of course i'm only talking about christianity here but i could go for a while on islam's treatment of women, Hindu's manipulation of the caste system or the myriad of other problems associated with every. religion. ever. conceived.

but OT: i don't even think morality is derived from religion, simply from human sympathy and empathy. but i'll stop.

And how many Jews and Buddhists do you know that are trying to convert people? And religion also encourages people to do things. Like charity, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And I don't think morality is derived from religion either. I think it is the other way around. It's just when people get bogged down in details, or other people try twist those details to their own ends, that you get the things you seem to be thinking of.
Another thing: there seems to be a jump in your logic with "religions want to convert people therefore the crux is to make things illegal". Would you care to explain that further?

i think buddhism and judaism are innapropriate examples to bring up in this context. buddhism can hardly be counted as a religion - as religion implies belief in some sort of deity and, imo, is more of a philosphy. synonymous with a jail without walls? judaism as well has traditionally been associated with the israelites and that respective ethnic group. judaism does not wish to convert the masses because of this exclusivity / superiority complex. thus the two examples you brought up are void.

as with christianity and islam, it is in the very bible and koran to convert people. i will say that religion encourages people to do things, but that hardly detracts from the ills that it has caused society. i'm not saying that a completely secular society would be perfect, but i believe that religion is for duds.

 

[turbosloth]

More research needs to be done on cannabis. There is a well documented correlation of cannabis use and certain types of serotonin and nervous disorders among a segment of the population. These can cause severe and life-long disabilities.

The segment of the population is small, but it does exist, so before widespread legalization occurs, especially of any means of intake that might cause others to also be exposed unwilling (such as smoking) there needs to be some serious studies done to determine whether the correlation has a causal link, and if so, what may be able to be done about it.

I agree that with that. Just because we know some things that weed does, that don't happen to be too bad, doesn't mean we don't know about it.

More research should be done before anything, at least. We don't know enough to call it as safe as everyone is so quick to do.

Not really an issue for me, since I support the unconditional legalisation of all recreational drugs and all drugs for recreational purposes.

It's probably best to legalise drugs and stick a stonking great tax on them. Might as well make a profit from it. The government will make a decent profit and would be a step forward in dealing with drug crime.

That's not to say people should be encouraged to use the stuff, god no. They should be treated like cigarettes - legal and expensive as hell, but looked upon with disdain.

/Agree

 

[paragon1]

yes..

snip

I agree with everything you said except the last line of your edit. First, do you really think its okay to treat religion as a monolith? Different religions forbid and allow different things. Most of them make sense. You know, like forbidding things like murder, theft, etc.
But I assume your talking about Christians in general, right? (also a pretty diverse group)
I guess I'm asking that you not treat religion(s) as a whole group with a single set of beliefs, or make the assumption that every idea those groups have come up with is bad.

no i'm going to treat religion as one big lump of horribleness for the one integral reason:
every religion with a god wants to convert people. thus the crux of religion is to "save" other people by making things illegal. abortion is to save the babbies, legislating against gays is to save everyone else (think Sodom and Gomorrah) and restricting stem cell research is to save the zygote 2 cell equivalent of a babby.

of course i'm only talking about christianity here but i could go for a while on islam's treatment of women, Hindu's manipulation of the caste system or the myriad of other problems associated with every. religion. ever. conceived.

but OT: i don't even think morality is derived from religion, simply from human sympathy and empathy. but i'll stop.

And how many Jews and Buddhists do you know that are trying to convert people? And religion also encourages people to do things. Like charity, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And I don't think morality is derived from religion either. I think it is the other way around. It's just when people get bogged down in details, or other people try twist those details to their own ends, that you get the things you seem to be thinking of.
Another thing: there seems to be a jump in your logic with "religions want to convert people therefore the crux is to make things illegal". Would you care to explain that further?

i think buddhism and judaism are innapropriate examples to bring up in this context. buddhism can hardly be counted as a religion - as religion implies belief in some sort of deity and, imo, is more of a philosphy. synonymous with a jail without walls? judaism as well has traditionally been associated with the israelites and that respective ethnic group. judaism does not wish to convert the masses because of this exclusivity / superiority complex. thus the two examples you brought up are void.

as with christianity and islam, it is in the very bible and koran to convert people. i will say that religion encourages people to do things, but that hardly detracts from the ills that it has caused society. i'm not saying that a completely secular society would be perfect, but i believe that religion is for duds.

Right, so if an example of a religion is inconvenient for your world-view, then you just say it isn't a religion? And I suppose the fact that Judaism forms the basis for Christian and Islamic thought is irrelevant as well? How about Hindus then? It's impossible to become a Hindu unless your born a Hindu. Would you say it's not a religion as well?
Now, I'm not familiar with the content of the Koran, but Jesus commanded his disciples to "spread the word amongst all the nations." He didn't say, "go kill everyone that disagrees with you." Which is what most atheists (you're atheist, right?) seem to think, at least when they get into an argument. Frankly, what my problem is, is that you seem to be practicing the same close-mindedness that you accuse religions and the religious to be unanimously guilty of.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

To me it is a matter of choice.

We don't own anything in this world, not really. Your house can be taken from you, burnt down or repossessed. Your things can be destroyed or stolen in a heart beat. The government, the greatest thief of all, has many ways to just take whatever you own should they deem it. The only thing we truly have is what we where born with... these physical forms. What we do to them... that should be OUR CHOICE!

I don't like the idea of the government being able to have any say over our possession of our own bodies and mind. That they should have the final say of what we can and can not experience with them, more so when no harm will come to another person. On that note, the consequences of which we should have to live with, not throw onto some chemical structure that can't think for itself. It is very backwards, the way the law currently is. We are not legally allowed to but have no responsibility if we do something wrong.

[sarcasm] It was all the 'drugs fault' so don't send me to prison for running over a guy while intoxicated! The government was to blame, it should of been a better babysitter for my body!... [/sarcasm]

The government can just get get the hell out of my body.

 

[Biosophilogical]

HURRAY TIME TO SHARE AN OPINION!!!
I am sick and tired of being told what is and isn't 'proper' F**K PROPER I SAY!!! I have absolutely no issue with people doing low-strength drugs, like marijuana (not things like spped though, that never stops at 'private-use only' I'm afraid. I also have no issue with T.V. being completely uncensored, after all, people mght say that having everything as swearing will make people stupid, but if everything is swearing, people would get sick of it, and the excessive swearing would stop.

Same applies to pretty much everything, if you are able to choose whether a certain substance has an influence in your life, then there is nothing wrong with having the option available.

Alas, my fellow escapists, this is unlikely to happen, seeing as most (if not all), live in a democratic society, and therefore all the majority (Those who enforce these things on us!) end up deciding how things work, when, in a perfect world (where people are truly free, not just this democrtic version of free) only the qualified would be allowed to vote, and therefore, the politicians would be the most qualified for the positions and they would no longer have to play the game of politics, trying to be liked, instead, they could do what is right and best for the population in the long run.

 

[Iron Mal]

I'm sure people have died from cannabis use, just not as many as the adverts try to hint at (I'm pretty certain that too much of anything can be leathal).

Find me a single recorded case in medical history of someone dying from thc overdose and private message me your real address/paypal account/whatever on the forums, and i will personally send you $100 (australian). No kidding.

Too much of pretty much anything can be leathal (you can die of water posioning from having too much water in your body, if water can kill you in excess then I'm sure that cannabis has the same potential).

I'm not saying that death from cannabis overdoses are a common occurance, just that it is more than likely that it has occured on at least one occasion.

I don't have to provide evidence because the laws of averages would dictate that for all of the people throughout the world and throughout history that have used cannabis, there will be at least one who will have died from exposure to the substance itself (you can keep your money).

 

[Michael S. Azrael]

I believe if the only person it is hurting is you and you made the choice with a sound mind, there is no reason for it to be illegal.

 

[turbosloth]

I'm sure people have died from cannabis use, just not as many as the adverts try to hint at (I'm pretty certain that too much of anything can be leathal).

Find me a single recorded case in medical history of someone dying from thc overdose and private message me your real address/paypal account/whatever on the forums, and i will personally send you $100 (australian). No kidding.

Too much of pretty much anything can be leathal (you can die of water posioning from having too much water in your body, if water can kill you in excess then I'm sure that cannabis has the same potential).

I'm not saying that death from cannabis overdoses are a common occurance, just that it is more than likely that it has occured on at least one occasion.

I don't have to provide evidence because the laws of averages would dictate that for all of the people throughout the world and throughout history that have used cannabis, there will be at least one who will have died from exposure to the substance itself (you can keep your money).

Technically i think you can die from having too much urine in your body, although its sometimes refereed to as 'water poisoning', and it only happens in extreme or unusual circumstances.

Secondly, while I'm sure there is some theoretical concentration of THC in your system that would kill you, unless someone purified it out in a lab and started injecting you with massive quantities of it or a similarly extreme scenario occurred, you would find it physically impossible to reach. I don't care how much of the stuff you smoke, its not going to kill you. And if you tried to ingest enough to kill you in brownies or something, you'd die from the sheer volume of food consumed long before you would of THC overdose (or you know, just stop eating)

Not only has nobody died from this, but without some serious technological know how, it would be impossible to kill yourself with even if you were trying

 

[Iron Mal]

Technically i think you can die from having too much urine in your body, although its sometimes refereed to as 'water poisoning', and it only happens in extreme or unusual circumstances.

Secondly, while I'm sure there is some theoretical concentration of THC in your system that would kill you, unless someone purified it out in a lab and started injecting you with massive quantities of it or a similarly extreme scenario occurred, you would find it physically impossible to reach. I don't care how much of the stuff you smoke, its not going to kill you. And if you tried to ingest enough to kill you in brownies or something, you'd die from the sheer volume of food consumed long before you would of THC overdose (or you know, just stop eating)

Not only has nobody died from this, but without some serious technological know how, it would be impossible to kill yourself with even if you were trying

Fair enough for correcting me on the true nature of water posioning, I'm not a medical expert (although urine is mostly made up of water and unused nutrients so it would still technically be the result of too much water in your system that would kill you).

Agaian, I repeat my point of it has to be possible for one person to have overdosed or otherwise had an adverse reaction to the substance itself, I'm agreeing with you to a point (it's extremely unlikly that an individual would or could overdose but this is not to say that it is outright impossible, every foreign substance has the potential to seriously harm or kill the body, the likelyhood of this actually occuring varies from substance to substance).

Ockham's razor supports the idea that there has to have been at least one leathality as a result of an overdose from Cannabis, almost every stubstance on Earth that is known to man and science has the possibility to kill us yet for some reason a single plant (which has an effect on humans) can't quite do it?

Either we're looking at a miricle plant or we've overlooked a few unfortunate people (just because they weren't reccorded or reported it doesn't mean it never happened).

 

[turbosloth]

Technically i think you can die from having too much urine in your body, although its sometimes refereed to as 'water poisoning', and it only happens in extreme or unusual circumstances.

Secondly, while I'm sure there is some theoretical concentration of THC in your system that would kill you, unless someone purified it out in a lab and started injecting you with massive quantities of it or a similarly extreme scenario occurred, you would find it physically impossible to reach. I don't care how much of the stuff you smoke, its not going to kill you. And if you tried to ingest enough to kill you in brownies or something, you'd die from the sheer volume of food consumed long before you would of THC overdose (or you know, just stop eating)

Not only has nobody died from this, but without some serious technological know how, it would be impossible to kill yourself with even if you were trying

Fair enough for correcting me on the true nature of water posioning, I'm not a medical expert (although urine is mostly made up of water and unused nutrients so it would still technically be the result of too much water in your system that would kill you).

Agaian, I repeat my point of it has to be possible for one person to have overdosed or otherwise had an adverse reaction to the substance itself, I'm agreeing with you to a point (it's extremely unlikly that an individual would or could overdose but this is not to say that it is outright impossible, every foreign substance has the potential to seriously harm or kill the body, the likelyhood of this actually occuring varies from substance to substance).

Ockham's razor supports the idea that there has to have been at least one leathality as a result of an overdose from Cannabis, almost every stubstance on Earth that is known to man and science has the possibility to kill us yet for some reason a single plant (which has an effect on humans) can't quite do it?

Either we're looking at a miricle plant or we've overlooked a few unfortunate people (just because they weren't reccorded or reported it doesn't mean it never happened).

While it's quite possible that someone has died from cannibas exposure, the only possible reason for that would be if they had an individual unusual negative reaction to it, i.e. a severe allergy or something similar. Are you suggesting that we should reconsider the legality of peanuts? Peanut allergies kill many people in recorded cases every year.

And they are not recorded or reported because they have not happened. As you point out almost every substance has the possibility to kill us. And once again, i'm not even arguing that THC is completely harmless and can't kill you, just that you can't possibly smoke the amount that would. To make that point even more clear I will use first a personal anecdote and then science:

Personal Anecdote:
If you must know as well as being quite well read in the area, I know this from personal experience as several times as part of bets or dare's i have sat down and smoked as much weed as i possibly could - i.e. smoked continuously until i was too high to lift a bong to my lips and light it because my muscles would not obey my brains commands to move no matter what i did, then had mates light them for me until i fell asleep. My record was a consumption of 68 cones of high-grade, hydroponic, finely chopped marijuana in just over 2 and a half hours. At that point I was high far beyond the point of being remotely functional, having done the "smoking equivalent" of something like drinking 3 litres of vodka in that timespan or something equally ridiculous, and it felt absolutely wonderful and had no negative side effects at all (well, aside from being a contributing factor to the decline of my short-term memory)

Science:
Ok, I admit this comes from wikipedia (yea, i know, not the most reliable source, but if you remain unconvinced i might be motivated to dig up some better ones) but apparently they have discovered the lethal dose in rats, dogs, monkeys and mice, from which they can extrapolate an estimate that in order to reach its LD50 (the dose at which it will kill half a sample population) a person would have to consume 680 kilograms of marijuana in around 15 minutes (assuming they were smoking it. Apparently it would be slightly easier to kill yourself with it by dissolving into oil and then drinking an unholy fuckload of it, but i think that more or less comes back to "deliberately trying"). Quite honestly, if you consume that much weed somehow, I'm pretty sure it won't kill you anyway for reason of you clearly being superman. I mean we're talking about smoking more than half a TON of grass here.

EDIT: oh, and a further thought on the above personal anecdote: most people who die from "water poisoning" do so as a result of some form of competition that requires them to not urinate for a long period of time, often while drinking large amounts of water. A similar competition (i.e. a 'smoke off') was the reason for my consuming the stupid quantities of weed above, and it had no harmful effects. From this I can say that marijuana is less lethal than water.

 

[Iron Mal]

While it's quite possible that someone has died from cannibas exposure, the only possible reason for that would be if they had an individual unusual negative reaction to it, i.e. a severe allergy or something similar. Are you suggesting that we should reconsider the legality of peanuts? Peanut allergies kill many people in recorded cases every year.

And they are not recorded or reported because they have not happened. As you point out A) almost every substance has the possibility to kill us. And once again, i'm not even arguing that THC is completely harmless and can't kill you, just that you can't possibly smoke the amount that would. To make that point even more clear I will use first a personal anecdote and then science:

Personal Anecdote:
If you must know as well as being quite well read in the area, I know this from personal experience as several times as part of bets or dare's i have sat down and smoked as much weed as i possibly could - i.e. smoked continuously until i was too high to lift a bong to my lips and light it because my muscles would not obey my brains commands to move no matter what i did, then had mates light them for me until i fell asleep. My record was a consumption of 68 cones of high-grade, hydroponic, finely chopped marijuana in just over 2 and a half hours. At that point I was high far beyond the point of being remotely functional, having done the "smoking equivalent" of something like drinking 3 litres of vodka in that timespan or something equally ridiculous, and it felt absolutely wonderful and had no negative side effects at all (well, aside from being a contributing factor to the decline of my short-term memory)

Science:
Ok, I admit this comes from wikipedia (yea, i know, not the most reliable source, but if you remain unconvinced i might be motivated to dig up some better ones) but apparently they have discovered the lethal dose in rats, dogs, monkeys and mice, from which they can extrapolate an estimate that in order to reach its LD50 (the dose at which it will kill half a sample population) a person would have to consume 680 kilograms of marijuana in around 15 minutes (assuming they were smoking it. Apparently it would be slightly easier to kill yourself with it by dissolving into oil and then drinking an unholy fuckload of it, but i think that more or less comes back to "deliberately trying"). Quite honestly, if you consume that much weed somehow, I'm pretty sure it won't kill you anyway for reason of you clearly being superman.

I understand what you're saying and I agree that it is an extremely unlikely occurance and that as far as substances go THC is one of the least harmful (to my knowledge) and the possibility of a fatality is not what would lead me to believe that it should be made illegal (given it's laughably small chance of killing someone this would be like banning the use of bandages because some idiot somewhere could strangle themself with them), there is a possibility if not much of a probability (argueably, the part about every substance being able to kill you is that for many examples it happens to be under rare and strange circumstances but then again, these circumstances do occur from time to time).

Also, about you saying that because something was not reccorded or reported that it did not happen, allow me to introduce you to the sociological concept of the 'dark figure of crime', this is the number of crimes that occur that do not get reported (for example: victimless crimes, crimes where the victim is reluctant to report, cases where the police do not believe the crime warrents their attention among many others). These crimes still happened even if the statistics say otherwise (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).