Poll: marajauna legalization

[Jsnoopy]

snip

Wrong. Junkies mugging you = taking rights away from others. Driving high and hitting someone = taking rights away from people.

If you can use drugs and not effect anyone, you should be allowed to. Coke, pot, heroin, meth, liquor, or tabacco.

I agree, but the problem is enforcing a way so that the stronger, more addictive drugs don't effect anyone. Hell we have a hard enough time stopping drunk people from driving, and would most likely have an even harder one stopping a junkie from robbing someone so he can go score his next hit.

 

[Cliff_m85]

snip

Wrong. Junkies mugging you = taking rights away from others. Driving high and hitting someone = taking rights away from people.

If you can use drugs and not effect anyone, you should be allowed to. Coke, pot, heroin, meth, liquor, or tabacco.

I agree, but the problem is enforcing a way so that the stronger, more addictive drugs don't effect anyone. Hell we have a hard enough time stopping drunk people from driving, and would most likely have an even harder one stopping a junkie from robbing someone so he can go score his next hit.

Why make the more addictive drugs not effect anyone? Just put a warning on the box. It is your personal responsibility to choose to take the risk or not.

I'm not afraid of robberies or whatnot. I'm afraid of not having enough freedom.

 

[Clashero]

1) It's not addictive, only habit-forming.
2) It's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.
3) It's not toxic, so you can't OD.
4) "BUT IT'S A GATEWAY DRUGS TO STRONGER, MORE DANGEROUS DRUGS". But if it was legalized, there would be privately owned or even state-owned stores selling marijuana, and only marijuana. You wouldn't go to your regular dealer to get marijuana if you could possibly getting for cheaper at a store 2 blocks from your house, would you?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

NO, i know to much about the mechanism of our brain and what it does with it - it is much more dangerous than most of the users can imagine.

Care to explain?

Yes, I do think Marijuana should be legalized. All it does is "slow" your sences. Sure if you smoke every 6 hours it'll eventually have repercussions but they'll eventually wane off. And what idiot smokes marijuana every day?

 

[fuzzball]

I'm firmly of the opinion that all narcotics, no matter how extreme, should be legalized.

As such, I support the legalization of Marijuana. I also support the legalization of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and any other form of illicit substance.

If people are dumb enough to use these substances and get addicted, I feel no sympathy for them.

In addition, I strongly believe the government has no right to control what people do to themselves. And since narcotics do no damage to anyone but the person using it, the government should get the fuck out of trying to limit them.

Where the reason such extreme substances are not legal is because people under the influence of the drugs may harm other people without a good reason, or even know they are

 

[fuzzball]

You can smoke tobacoo before work and do just fine. But some can smoke weed before work and be high as a kite. Therefore how do we know who can handle the drug? Tabacoo is something that does not make you high and therefore theres no need to worry about empolyee A coming to work high and being fine and employee B coming to work after one blunt and just being stoned out of his mind.

Also taxes would be terrible.

So sorry, but no.

Well, anyone who came into work high to the 'point of a kite' would be fired, just like an employee who came into work drunk

 

[Jsnoopy]

srry 'bout the double post but the quote got fucked up

 

[Jsnoopy]

snip

Wrong. Junkies mugging you = taking rights away from others. Driving high and hitting someone = taking rights away from people.

If you can use drugs and not effect anyone, you should be allowed to. Coke, pot, heroin, meth, liquor, or tabacco.

I agree, but the problem is enforcing a way so that the stronger, more addictive drugs don't effect anyone. Hell we have a hard enough time stopping drunk people from driving, and would most likely have an even harder one stopping a junkie from robbing someone so he can go score his next hit.

Why make the more addictive drugs not effect anyone? Just put a warning on the box. It is your personal responsibility to choose to take the risk or not.

I'm not afraid of robberies or whatnot. I'm afraid of not having enough freedom.

Ok first off, warning labels won't work. They don't work warning people about the dangers of tobacco, they don't stop an alcoholic mother from driving a mile the wrong way down a highway before smashing into the side of a SUV and killing 8 people, like what just recently happened in the news.
Secondly, while ideally it should be up to personal choice, realistically these are crackheads we are talking about, not exactly the shining beacon of responsible decisions.

 

[Danzaivar]

Oh no! I mean as soon as we make it legal I bet stoners would swarm to it like moths on a light.

I never really like the idea of having pot legal. I know there are benefits but I never found them to be better the risk of addiction

If someone is a stoner, doesn't that mean they're already using it?

 

[Pillypill]

Fact: Weed(pot) "is less harmful in both long and short term use than both tabaco and alcohol." ministry of public health (MOH).

 

[r0qu3]

Ah...it's time again for the big legalization discussion...

it's a fairly pointless one too. The biggest argument of the legalizers is always the direct connection between legal and illegal drugs (alcohol is worse...yadayada). That's not helping, because if you are serious the consequence wouldn't be to allow cannabis over alcohol(f.ex.), it would be to forbid the "legal" ones as well.

On the other hand there are the non legalizers, who often lack experience and have wild fantasies about drug consumption or have some good and stable sounding reasons never to do it. From their viewpoint the discussion is pointless because drugs are bad.

As for myself, i smoke weed for about 13yrs now, i had low points, i had good points but in the end i lost a lot of time and memory capacity.I wouldn't recommend anybody to start smoking weed early on or everyday, despite i'm doing it myself. It also didn't enhance my life it made it more struggling over the years. Im not going to say i lost my brain totally, but I'm not as fit as i used to be...and that's awkward

But I'm sick of talking about legalization, i just want to live my life and not have to justify my self all the time in discussions like this one. I also can't read anymore of these "Oh, yeah weed is great"-replies also. People stating this are just plain stupid or not honest to themselves...

What i really want to say is, stop the weed/drugs threads.... It's never going to be legalised and the social groups of yay- or naysayers will never find common ground.

Just do what you're think is right and stop talking bullshit...

P.S.: I'm heavily in for the use as medicine and anybody who isn't, is an idiot who is not willing to take all available measures to help his fellow man.


plz excuse my grammar, i'm not native to english...

 

[Mewick_Alex]

I think I'd need to know more about the argument for having it legalized. I know there are arguments for it, I just have no idea what they are.

My current standing is: Harmful drug = do not legalize.

Find Pen and Tellers bullshit war on drugs episode (you tube has them) and there is a good comic out there based on 'a Christmas carol' by Charles Dickens but I am having trouble finding it again (on edit: http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/ ). Explains the history of drug use and how things where made far worse by prohibition.

The fact is cannabis was made illegal based around some moral crusade, not on scientific fact. Compounded by the fact it competed with some industries that had good pulling with the press (Hearst owned paper pulping and news print organisations, for example) and they wanted to get rid of a cheaper, safer and easier to manufacture competitor to boost sales. Didn't help that it was used heavily by the black community and was targeted by politicians like Nixon for the simple fact they wanted to kill the black and 'hippy' culture. Greed, racism and 'I know better then you' where the key drives to ban cannabis.

It is a non-toxic, non-physically addictive*, substance that has less devastating effects, in general population, then alcohol. It is kept illegal simply because it makes a good 'dead horse' to beat against by politicians who want to look 'tough on crime' simply as many are like yourself. They have no real clue about the issue and so are willing to believe what a politician tells them about Cannabis and drugs in general.

Personally I think all drugs should be regulated and those who have a true problem with them should be given medical help. They might never get completely 'off the horse' but they can become productive members of society if we focused on that over locking them up!

*Mentally yes, but if you want to ban everything that can be addicted to mentally then we have to start with the internet! Also will have to ban nearly everything else, including sex. If it is fun so our minds will want to repeat the experience, simple fact....

Thanks for the info, that was interesting stuff! I'm not going to be online for long so I won't check out the comic/Bullshit episode just yet, but i certainly will when I get back.

 

[Cliff_m85]

snip

Wrong. Junkies mugging you = taking rights away from others. Driving high and hitting someone = taking rights away from people.

If you can use drugs and not effect anyone, you should be allowed to. Coke, pot, heroin, meth, liquor, or tabacco.

I agree, but the problem is enforcing a way so that the stronger, more addictive drugs don't effect anyone. Hell we have a hard enough time stopping drunk people from driving, and would most likely have an even harder one stopping a junkie from robbing someone so he can go score his next hit.

Why make the more addictive drugs not effect anyone? Just put a warning on the box. It is your personal responsibility to choose to take the risk or not.

I'm not afraid of robberies or whatnot. I'm afraid of not having enough freedom.

Ok first off, warning labels won't work. They don't work warning people about the dangers of tobacco, they don't stop an alcoholic mother from driving a mile the wrong way down a highway before smashing into the side of a SUV and killing 8 people, like what just recently happened in the news.
Secondly, while ideally it should be up to personal choice, realistically these are crackheads we are talking about, not exactly the shining beacon of responsible decisions.

How about this....go get a pack of cigarettes, read the warning, and then tell me that bullshit about warning labels not telling the dangers of tobacco.

So what if a warning doesn't prevent an alcoholic from driving? Without the warning the booze would be to blame. With the warning the person is to blame.

Crackheads would probably benefit from regulated crack. It'd be cheaper and safer, giving less of incentive to rob.

 

[Agayek]

Where the reason such extreme substances are not legal is because people under the influence of the drugs may harm other people without a good reason, or even know they are

And when that happens, they should be punished severely, moreso than if they had done the same thing not under the influence.

The drug(s) itself should not be banned though.

 

[Zer_]

snip

Wrong. Junkies mugging you = taking rights away from others. Driving high and hitting someone = taking rights away from people.

If you can use drugs and not effect anyone, you should be allowed to. Coke, pot, heroin, meth, liquor, or tabacco.

I agree, but the problem is enforcing a way so that the stronger, more addictive drugs don't effect anyone. Hell we have a hard enough time stopping drunk people from driving, and would most likely have an even harder one stopping a junkie from robbing someone so he can go score his next hit.

Why make the more addictive drugs not effect anyone? Just put a warning on the box. It is your personal responsibility to choose to take the risk or not.

I'm not afraid of robberies or whatnot. I'm afraid of not having enough freedom.

Ok first off, warning labels won't work. They don't work warning people about the dangers of tobacco, they don't stop an alcoholic mother from driving a mile the wrong way down a highway before smashing into the side of a SUV and killing 8 people, like what just recently happened in the news.
Secondly, while ideally it should be up to personal choice, realistically these are crackheads we are talking about, not exactly the shining beacon of responsible decisions.

How about this....go get a pack of cigarettes, read the warning, and then tell me that bullshit about warning labels not telling the dangers of tobacco.

So what if a warning doesn't prevent an alcoholic from driving? Without the warning the booze would be to blame. With the warning the person is to blame.

Crackheads would probably benefit from regulated crack. It'd be cheaper and safer, giving less of incentive to rob.

Actually it'd be more expensive. Cocaine today taking into consideration inflation is something like 100 times cheaper then it was in the early 70s. The reason of course is because in the 70s the drugs that were sold were only about 10-20% pure. Today that number is up in the 90% pure range and as such accounts for the huge drop in price overall.

Legalizing drugs would make them more expensive as they would probably be taxed like hell.

 

[Cliff_m85]

snip

Wrong. Junkies mugging you = taking rights away from others. Driving high and hitting someone = taking rights away from people.

If you can use drugs and not effect anyone, you should be allowed to. Coke, pot, heroin, meth, liquor, or tabacco.

I agree, but the problem is enforcing a way so that the stronger, more addictive drugs don't effect anyone. Hell we have a hard enough time stopping drunk people from driving, and would most likely have an even harder one stopping a junkie from robbing someone so he can go score his next hit.

Why make the more addictive drugs not effect anyone? Just put a warning on the box. It is your personal responsibility to choose to take the risk or not.

I'm not afraid of robberies or whatnot. I'm afraid of not having enough freedom.

Ok first off, warning labels won't work. They don't work warning people about the dangers of tobacco, they don't stop an alcoholic mother from driving a mile the wrong way down a highway before smashing into the side of a SUV and killing 8 people, like what just recently happened in the news.
Secondly, while ideally it should be up to personal choice, realistically these are crackheads we are talking about, not exactly the shining beacon of responsible decisions.

How about this....go get a pack of cigarettes, read the warning, and then tell me that bullshit about warning labels not telling the dangers of tobacco.

So what if a warning doesn't prevent an alcoholic from driving? Without the warning the booze would be to blame. With the warning the person is to blame.

Crackheads would probably benefit from regulated crack. It'd be cheaper and safer, giving less of incentive to rob.

Actually it'd be more expensive. Cocaine today taking into consideration inflation is something like 100 times cheaper then it was in the early 70s. The reason of course is because in the 70s the drugs that were sold were only about 10-20% pure. Today that number is up in the 90% pure range and as such accounts for the huge drop in price overall.

Legalizing drugs would make them more expensive as they would probably be taxed like hell.

One thing lowers prices: Competition.

How many times does a druggy 'shop around'?

 

[jboking]

because its proven to give you mental illness no thanks

It sure can...if it is abused. Of course there is that same argument you hear all the time, even pizza can be deadly and cause illness if abused (or used in excess).

A lot of what I want to say has been said in excess:
It's not that harmful
You can tax it
People use it anyway
etc.

The only thing left that I want to say is that a lot of the drug trade would stop if MJ became commercially available. Look a Alcohol prohibition, because it was illegal people would brew their own and traffic it to others. However, as soon as it became legal companies started to produce their own and made it readily available. The fact is, people pay for convenience. Could the alcohol trade have continued? Sure, but there was no way they could actually compete with a large company. It was no longer worth doing. I could easily see the same thing happening to marijuana.

Actually smoking it once a month still count as abuse since seems induce loads borderline mental illness.

I'm sorry...what? I cannot understand what you just typed. However, if what you are saying is that using something once a month is abuse because it can cause the negative effects I would ask that you retrieve some form of proof, because that is absurd.

 

[murphy7801]

because its proven to give you mental illness no thanks

It sure can...if it is abused. Of course there is that same argument you hear all the time, even pizza can be deadly and cause illness if abused (or used in excess).

A lot of what I want to say has been said in excess:
It's not that harmful
You can tax it
People use it anyway
etc.

The only thing left that I want to say is that a lot of the drug trade would stop if MJ became commercially available. Look a Alcohol prohibition, because it was illegal people would brew their own and traffic it to others. However, as soon as it became legal companies started to produce their own and made it readily available. The fact is, people pay for convenience. Could the alcohol trade have continued? Sure, but there was no way they could actually compete with a large company. It was no longer worth doing. I could easily see the same thing happening to marijuana.

Actually smoking it once a month still count as abuse since seems induce loads borderline mental illness.

I'm sorry...what? I cannot understand what you just typed. However, if what you are saying is that using something once a month is abuse because it can cause the negative effects I would ask that you retrieve some form of proof, because that is absurd.

Yes was awfully late when I wrote that sorry. What I was trying to express is that say smoke one a month for say 10 years increases your risk of mental illness. Oh there been a few papers on it just lately my mother over sees some of the research on it here in the uk.

 

[jboking]

because its proven to give you mental illness no thanks

It sure can...if it is abused. Of course there is that same argument you hear all the time, even pizza can be deadly and cause illness if abused (or used in excess).

A lot of what I want to say has been said in excess:
It's not that harmful
You can tax it
People use it anyway
etc.

The only thing left that I want to say is that a lot of the drug trade would stop if MJ became commercially available. Look a Alcohol prohibition, because it was illegal people would brew their own and traffic it to others. However, as soon as it became legal companies started to produce their own and made it readily available. The fact is, people pay for convenience. Could the alcohol trade have continued? Sure, but there was no way they could actually compete with a large company. It was no longer worth doing. I could easily see the same thing happening to marijuana.

Actually smoking it once a month still count as abuse since seems induce loads borderline mental illness.

I'm sorry...what? I cannot understand what you just typed. However, if what you are saying is that using something once a month is abuse because it can cause the negative effects I would ask that you retrieve some form of proof, because that is absurd.

Yes was awfully late when I wrote that sorry. What I was trying to express is that say smoke one a month for say 10 years increases your risk of mental illness. Oh there been a few papers on it just lately my mother over sees some of the research on it here in the uk.

I could see once a week but one joint a month for ten years...I doubt it. I would like to know how they figure this out. If they do a live field study then it could be easy to see that there were likely other factors that would lead to developing mental illness. Of course, my schools valedictorian smoked one every other week...if he was mentally ill then I would like to catch the same kind of illness he did.

 

[see_you_at_the_GALLOWS]

i would love it to be legal. when i want to get high its so hard to find some good normal weed not skunk or rezin just some leaf, were as if it was legal it would be easy to pick and choose what you wanted because it would be monitered and their would be quality control.