Political Rant #1 Legalizing marijuana

[Zykon TheLich]

Pot should all be gathered and burned if I had my way

I think that's pretty much what happens anyway...

True but I kinda meant without someone smoking it.

I know (and you probably know I know), I'm too old and set in my ways to bother discussing things like this so I just make stupid comments instead.

 

[Korolev]

If alcohol and tobacco are allowed, you have to allow marijuana. Personally, I'm a teetotaller who wants to ban alcohol (not for religious reasons, I'm an atheist) and tabacco, but I just hate it when I see so many on the right claim that marijuana comes directly from the devil's rectum, while drinking and beating their wives and crashing their cars and destroying their livers. Alcohol is far more addictive than marijuana, affects the brain in many more ways and you can overdose on it and DIE. Marijuana is a "Bit" addictive, but it's about the same level as an addiction to chewing gum or chocolate - some will get addicted to marijuana, but some people can get addicted to anything. The majority won't get addicted to it.

As for its health effects....... eh the jury is still out on that. One thing we DO know is that it is NO MORE harmful than alcohol. It still might be harmful - research indicates that excessive smoking of marijuana leads to severe short-term memory loss (but you have to smoke a lot of it, and the damage takes at least a decade to manifest).

There are a few people (VERY FEW) people who have taken marijuana once and have had mental breakdowns because of it. Again, I stress that this is an extremely rare reaction, but it is real and has to be taken into account. But then again, some people die when eating snicker's bars because of peanut allergies. Yet those are not banned.

I would ban it. But then again, I would ban many things, because I feel like I belong in the 1950's when it comes to things like sex and drugs. I'm a colossal prude and I absolutely love/support/appreciate the police (no sarcasm).

But if we allow alcohol (which is VERY addictive, bad for you and has caused much pain and suffering to many people), we've got to allow Marijuana. The only reason why people like marijuana is because the government was afraid of it, and went on a huge propaganda rage to demonize it. Now that the research has been done, revealling it to be no more deadly than a bottle of vodka, it should be legalized, but the government is afraid of looking stupid, and rather than admit its mistake, it would rather just deny reality. Plus, it's scare campaign worked too well, and now your nation and my nation (australia) is filled with middle-aged people who also think drugs were spawned directly from the rectum of the devil himself, and will kill you if you even LOOK at it. And to appease the people it frightened, it can't legalize drugs.

Marijuana WILL eventually become legal, it will just take, oh about, 30 to 40 years.

Note that I still think it should be banned. I think all recreational drugs should be banned. But Marijuana is a different kettle of fish to say, crystal meth or ice (which can seriously mess you up, believe me, I've see quite a few crystal meth users in the emergency room, all freaked out, assaulting doctors who are trying to help them).

 

[Lord Krunk]

Is marijuana actually addictive anyway?

Not as much as tobacco, but still addictive.

I don't think that pot should be legalised at all. It may have no short-term physical effects, but what it does do is turn perfectly normal people into black-eyed dopes. Really, we don't need any more of them than we already have.

I love the amount of evidence you provide. Personally I'd rather have a bunch of "black-eyed dopes" (whatever those are) than a bunch of angry drunks.

Read through the thread a little, and you'll see my evidence, coupled with some great comments by various other people.

As for the whole angry drunk thing, I swear sometimes that most people are educated by their TV rather than the real world. Of course there are angry drunks around, but hardly any when it comes down to a ratio of people that drink. And as for stoners, every pot smoker that I've met in the real world just happen to be the exact thing that I described in the post that you quoted: black-eyed dopes.

 

[Korolev]

Also, alcohol isn't really of any benefit. You're thinking of the notion that wine can help the heart - yes it can. But it's not the alcohol that does it - it's the compounds from the grapes. You can get EXACTLY the same benefits from drinking wine, as from drinking fruit juice.

Alcohol (which we in the science biz call ethanol (same thing, different name)), is a TOXIN. It KILLS THINGS. We use it to STERALIZE objects before experiments. 100% pure alcohol will KILL anyone who drinks it. Of course, alcholic drinks DON'T have 100% alcohol, which is why you can drink it and not die. But it is a toxin that causes serious health problems, and it affects your ability to make rational judgements.

 

[bue519]

------Ok just to get my position out of the way first thing. I think that pot should be legalized with the same restrictions as either alcohol or cigarettes.
------Now for my reasoning. First off there is almost no health difference between pot and tobacco, a new british study puts pot as less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol. This was based on a three-part criteria on how physically dangerous the drug is, how addictive it is and its impact on society.
------Secondly is the number of drug-related crimes, over fifty percent of federal inmates are in jail for a drug-related crime. almost 70% of those are in prison for marijuana. If pot were legalized then many of those people would no longer be in prison.
------Last there is the money, for every one of those people in prison for pot offenses we pay an average of $52 a day just to keep them there. Imagine how much money we would save if they were no longer in prison. Add that to the reduction in organized crime when drug smuggling is no longer as profitable and the tax money from legalized pot and it is a financially solid move.
Thanks SCAMola

Firstly, there is a huge difference between alcohol and pot. Alcohol can be beneficial (glass of wine a day) whereas pot can have physiological effects e.g. loss of memory, paranoia, and even schizophrenia. I had to live with a guy addicted to pot and he was exceptionally violent due to paranoia. Imagine a society where that was allowed.
Also pot is almost always smoked with tobacco. So then you can link weed to all the consequences of smoking e.g. cancer, second-hand smoke.
Secondly, the drug-related crimes will most likely be due to dealing in weed. If those scum bags are making cash from drugs & you legalise it, they'll just move on to dealing in harder drugs e.g. crack cocaine. Also I'd like to see where you got that figure from, seems a bit dubious to me.
Thirdly, it is not a solution to just release criminals! That's ignoring the problem. Most likely they will have committed other crimes other than pot smoking to be in prison, such as theft to pay for it etc. If you want to save money, start treating them like the scum they are and get a sweat-shop going.

If you really want to get rid of all drug-related crime, make all cash electronic. That way, you could keep tabs on whose buying what from where and as all drug dealings are in cash, pretty much overnight you would stop the drug trade.

DEAR GOD!!! READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. I adressed everything you just said several times already

HA! No you bloody well haven't.
You've chosen to ignore that pot has the same risks as tobaco and more, and that alchol can be of benefit.
NOT TO MENTION that pot can also cause someone to be constantly violent which I have witnessed.
And your idea of release all pot smokers is naive at best, as you think they are all good guys just wanting to get high. Somehow I doubt that.

You do realize that your friend was probably violent due to the fact that he was coke head and not as you say "addicted to pot." Also please explain how pot is worse for you than cigarettes and would you kindly explain how alcohol be of benefit. Your arguments seem misguided and uninformed. Trust me I see the destruction of alcoholism, and the toll that it takes on a body over pot screwing people up.

 

[bue519]

Is marijuana actually addictive anyway?

Not as much as tobacco, but still addictive.

I don't think that pot should be legalised at all. It may have no short-term physical effects, but what it does do is turn perfectly normal people into black-eyed dopes. Really, we don't need any more of them than we already have.

I love the amount of evidence you provide. Personally I'd rather have a bunch of "black-eyed dopes" (whatever those are) than a bunch of angry drunks.

Read through the thread a little, and you'll see my evidence, coupled with some great comments by various other people.

As for the whole angry drunk thing, I swear sometimes that most people are educated by their TV rather than the real world. Of course there are angry drunks around, but hardly any when it comes down to a ratio of people that drink. And as for stoners, every pot smoker that I've met in the real world just happen to be the exact thing that I described in the post that you quoted: black-eyed dopes.

Well, you still give no evidence for black eyed dopes. (or even a definition) And were you born under a rock? Because there are angry drunks everywhere. I walk around my campus on a friday night constantly being challenged to fight by people who have taken too many shots of courage. So, I would have to say either go outside and see the real world, or just stop lying to yourself.

 

[Panzer_God]

------Ok just to get my position out of the way first thing. I think that pot should be legalized with the same restrictions as either alcohol or cigarettes.
------Now for my reasoning. First off there is almost no health difference between pot and tobacco, a new british study puts pot as less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol. This was based on a three-part criteria on how physically dangerous the drug is, how addictive it is and its impact on society.
------Secondly is the number of drug-related crimes, over fifty percent of federal inmates are in jail for a drug-related crime. almost 70% of those are in prison for marijuana. If pot were legalized then many of those people would no longer be in prison.
------Last there is the money, for every one of those people in prison for pot offenses we pay an average of $52 a day just to keep them there. Imagine how much money we would save if they were no longer in prison. Add that to the reduction in organized crime when drug smuggling is no longer as profitable and the tax money from legalized pot and it is a financially solid move.
Thanks SCAMola

Firstly, there is a huge difference between alcohol and pot. Alcohol can be beneficial (glass of wine a day) whereas pot can have physiological effects e.g. loss of memory, paranoia, and even schizophrenia. I had to live with a guy addicted to pot and he was exceptionally violent due to paranoia. Imagine a society where that was allowed.
Also pot is almost always smoked with tobacco. So then you can link weed to all the consequences of smoking e.g. cancer, second-hand smoke.
Secondly, the drug-related crimes will most likely be due to dealing in weed. If those scum bags are making cash from drugs & you legalise it, they'll just move on to dealing in harder drugs e.g. crack cocaine. Also I'd like to see where you got that figure from, seems a bit dubious to me.
Thirdly, it is not a solution to just release criminals! That's ignoring the problem. Most likely they will have committed other crimes other than pot smoking to be in prison, such as theft to pay for it etc. If you want to save money, start treating them like the scum they are and get a sweat-shop going.

If you really want to get rid of all drug-related crime, make all cash electronic. That way, you could keep tabs on whose buying what from where and as all drug dealings are in cash, pretty much overnight you would stop the drug trade.

DEAR GOD!!! READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. I adressed everything you just said several times already

HA! No you bloody well haven't.
You've chosen to ignore that pot has the same risks as tobaco and more, and that alchol can be of benefit.
NOT TO MENTION that pot can also cause someone to be constantly violent which I have witnessed.
And your idea of release all pot smokers is naive at best, as you think they are all good guys just wanting to get high. Somehow I doubt that.

First off it has the same risks because it is combined with tobacco to get repeat customers to dealers. Second, pot can make someone violent but again so can alcohol. I admitted that alcohol can have benefits and I only supported releasing people that are only in jail for smoking. When did i say that smokers are good people. I hate all of them

 

[Lord Krunk]

Is marijuana actually addictive anyway?

Not as much as tobacco, but still addictive.

I don't think that pot should be legalised at all. It may have no short-term physical effects, but what it does do is turn perfectly normal people into black-eyed dopes. Really, we don't need any more of them than we already have.

I love the amount of evidence you provide. Personally I'd rather have a bunch of "black-eyed dopes" (whatever those are) than a bunch of angry drunks.

Read through the thread a little, and you'll see my evidence, coupled with some great comments by various other people.

As for the whole angry drunk thing, I swear sometimes that most people are educated by their TV rather than the real world. Of course there are angry drunks around, but hardly any when it comes down to a ratio of people that drink. And as for stoners, every pot smoker that I've met in the real world just happen to be the exact thing that I described in the post that you quoted: black-eyed dopes.

Well, you still give no evidence for black eyed dopes. (or even a definition) And were you born under a rock? Because there are angry drunks everywhere. I walk around my campus on a friday night constantly being challenged to fight by people who have taken too many shots of courage. So, I would have to say either go outside and see the real world, or just stop lying to yourself.

Where do you live? 'cause I certainly want to avoid it if there are as many angry drunks as you say.

As for black-eyed dopes, that's definition enough. The sort of people that appear randomly out of bushes to stare at a hedge for half an hour like it's the messiah. And yes, I see it quite a bit. Once a week actually, and at the exact same hedge.

Maybe it's a magic hedge?

 

[Panzer_God]

I think this was a deliciously controversial issue for my first episode. Who thinks I should make some more. Besides you Krunk, i Don't like you and you don't count

 

[Lord Krunk]

Besides you Krunk, i Don't like you and you don't count

Funny, I got the same comment from some random guy about my stance on piracy.

 

[Panzer_God]

Is marijuana actually addictive anyway?

Not as much as tobacco, but still addictive.

I don't think that pot should be legalised at all. It may have no short-term physical effects, but what it does do is turn perfectly normal people into black-eyed dopes. Really, we don't need any more of them than we already have.

I love the amount of evidence you provide. Personally I'd rather have a bunch of "black-eyed dopes" (whatever those are) than a bunch of angry drunks.

Read through the thread a little, and you'll see my evidence, coupled with some great comments by various other people.

As for the whole angry drunk thing, I swear sometimes that most people are educated by their TV rather than the real world. Of course there are angry drunks around, but hardly any when it comes down to a ratio of people that drink. And as for stoners, every pot smoker that I've met in the real world just happen to be the exact thing that I described in the post that you quoted: black-eyed dopes.

Well, you still give no evidence for black eyed dopes. (or even a definition) And were you born under a rock? Because there are angry drunks everywhere. I walk around my campus on a friday night constantly being challenged to fight by people who have taken too many shots of courage. So, I would have to say either go outside and see the real world, or just stop lying to yourself.

Where do you live? 'cause I certainly want to avoid it if there are as many angry drunks as you say.

As for black-eyed dopes, that's definition enough. The sort of people that appear randomly out of bushes to stare at a hedge for half an hour like it's the messiah. And yes, I see it quite a bit. Once a week actually, and at the exact same hedge.

Maybe it's a magic hedge?

I'm gonna have to go with angry drunks being far more numerous then stoners. I can name a dozen cities where you'll see angry drunks every time you turn around and I'm sure the hedge is just convieniently placed for the three stoners that live within a hundred-mile radius of your house

 

[Panzer_God]

Besides you Krunk, i Don't like you and you don't count

Funny, I got the same comment from some random guy about my stance on piracy.

Yes but I'm not a random guy

 

[Panzer_God]

When did i say that smokers are good people. I hate all of them

Nice to see we have an open minded mature view here. There is a reason pot isn't legal and that smoking is being taken out of society. If you can't see that and think it's just the government ruining your idea of "Yay let's get high and have a fun time", then you need to look into it more & mature on the topic.

I have an open mind, I hate them very quietly and I don't hate them any more then I hate people who smoke cigs or drink beer. I just hate most people

 

[Lord Krunk]

I'm gonna have to go with angry drunks being far more numerous then stoners. I can name a dozen cities where you'll see angry drunks every time you turn around and I'm sure the hedge is just convieniently placed for the three stoners that live within a hundred-mile radius of your house

Geez, I'm starting to realise what a great place Sydney is...

Besides you Krunk, i Don't like you and you don't count

Funny, I got the same comment from some random guy about my stance on piracy.

Yes but I'm not a random guy

It's the point I'm making that matters. You're telling me my opinion doesn't count because I disagree with you. Which is so blatantly hypocritical and downright wrong that it makes my head spin.

 

[Panzer_God]

I'm gonna have to go with angry drunks being far more numerous then stoners. I can name a dozen cities where you'll see angry drunks every time you turn around and I'm sure the hedge is just convieniently placed for the three stoners that live within a hundred-mile radius of your house

Geez, I'm starting to realise what a great place Sydney is...

Besides you Krunk, i Don't like you and you don't count

Funny, I got the same comment from some random guy about my stance on piracy.

Yes but I'm not a random guy

It's the point I'm making that matters. You're telling me my opinion doesn't count because I disagree with you. Which is so blatantly hypocritical and downright wrong that it makes my head spin.

No I'm telling you that I don't care about your opinion becuase I don't like you. I'm glad you're here or this would be a boring thread but you annoy me So i'm not going to take your advice on wether or not to make another rant.

 

[vrmlguy]

I'm talking about what marijuana does to people, the menaces to society that are a result of this substance.

You mean menaces like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama?

 

[Lord Krunk]

No I'm telling you that I don't care about your opinion becuase I don't like you. I'm glad you're here or this would be a boring thread but you annoy me So i'm not going to take your advice on wether or not to make another rant.

Fair enough, but really the fact that you don't like me merely because of an opinion on a random subject (I get into arguments with Indigo_Dingo quite a bit, but we get along fine otherwise) sort of confuses me.

As for not taking my advice, I'm not forcing you to do (or not do) anything.

Pardon my vanity, but what about me annoys you?