Poll: Should Cannabis AKA Hemp Be Completely Legalized in the United States?

[vortex30]

Hemp/Cannabis IS illegal to grow in the USA, but it is not in many other countries, and I believe Hemp products, such as clothing is legal to buy/sell in the USA as it doesn't contain THC and is no longer in the form of the Hemp/Cannabis plant.

Of course Hemp is still hazardous to your health, as is any burning plant. THC, on the other hand, poses very few health risks itself, aside from some links to mental illness, which is more down to the high, and 'mind expansion' and resulting paranoia and all that jazz. In all cases of Cannabis induced psychosis that I have seen/experienced it has followed HEAVY abuse of Cannabis and in most all cases would clear up within 1-2 weeks of stopping use.

Now, health has nothing to do with whether or not something should be legal/illegal. If this were true then Trans Fats should certainly be illegal (along with McDonalds and all forms of 'fast food'), Tobacco and Alcohol should be illegal, etc. Health has nothing to do with drug reform.

Drug reform is about smart drug policy for SOCIETY, not necessarily what we would like to see individual drug users doing (IE given up the habit for their health/safety/future). Yes, even Heroin and Meth I believe should be legal, but of course, Cannabis should be first, as (another) experiment of legalisation. Remember, legalising Alcohol took so much money from the armed gangs trafficking it, and also eliminated all Methanol deaths, etc. All drug legalisation will be positive overall because it takes money away from gangs and puts it in the hands of governments.

Its also about personal freedoms. The BIGGEST drug user you have ever seen is doing NOTHING to deserve imprisonment. Well, nothing directly related to the posession and consumption of drugs. How he gets the money for drugs, that may be deserving of imprisonment, but put one in prison for that, not for a guilty pleasure, addiction, habit or whatever that he happens to have. He needs help, not prison.

With legal drugs, being a black market drug dealer would still be illegal. So the scum currently pushing drugs in school grounds and in the streets would still be put behind bars. Naturally a black market will open up, with either stolen product from government dispensaries or imported product, made at a cheaper price, thus drawing in consumers. But selling drugs without a government license will still be illegal and one will go to prison for it. Selling to children will become illegal, and stores/dealers who do this will be met with harsh punishment.

Yes, legal drugs make perfect sense in every aspect EXCEPT health. But the catch is that if health were the reason to make drugs illegal, well there are 2 drugs that are currently putting a major stain on that policy (Alcohol and Tobacco). Also there are many products/foods that are contradictory to this policy. If the government can interefere in our lives then as Ron Paul said in 1988, "Maybe the government should put you on a diet, you're a bit over weight"

 

[flare09]

It'd be kind of hard to control. And crime would go down a bit. And it could help the economy. And the government could make some money off of it. But the whole "dope is bad" thing would be used in every protest ever.

 

[NinjaSkills]

I think it should be legal

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Sure why not, god knows we here in cali need all the money we can get. Will it happen? Its very doubtful.

We will make only a few billions dollars off it in California, and we obviously don't need that money right now sooooo....

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Hemp is legal, considering that hemp doesn't make you high.
You mean Cannabis AKA marijuana.

Hemp - not a drug. They use the fibers for organic clothing and shoes and bags and things.

Cannabis sativa AKA Hemp
While hemp contains less THC than Marijuana, it can still be hazardous to your health.

sativa is the type with thc in it. there is sativa and indica in the cannabis genus that are the main thc producers

the sad part is the states will never legalize the growth of hemp because it is an evil drug and a "gateway" drug and many other reasons. they tried to decriminalize it in Canada a few years ago and the states pitched a hissy fit about it and threatened to clamp down on border searches because Canadians would degrade into a drug crazed populace who had no regard for the law and our country would fall into disarray.

the scary part is that's what they thought would happen in Canada

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I don't smoke cannabis, so to be perfectly honest I don't particularly care about what happens with it. If it's legalised, cool, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try it. If it stays illegal, whatever, it already was, and my friends all still smoke it anyway. Illegalising it is sort've pointless on retrospect.

 

[Good morning blues]

There's an option missing: Yes, because it would devastate the income sources for organized crime.

 

[Agrael]

Weed = (part of)Drugs.
Drugs = Bad.

Now I don't care what people say, Weed is as (or more) harmful than tobacco, but it is an excellent painkiller.

I'll stay neutral on this one.

But I still say that it should stay illegal, but legal when it is used as a painkiller.

 

[Bobtowna]

Sure why not, god knows we here in cali need all the money we can get. Will it happen? Its very doubtful.

Also we have the most production.

 

[resultsmayvary]

Under medicine I would like to add that it is a great way to rejuvenate the appetite of chemo patients and AIDS victims.

Yes, it should be legal. Marijuana is a cousin plant to Hopps, the main ingredient in beer. The effect it has on people is no more severe than alcohol.

I'm sorry, but your avatar renders your argument invalid

I probably should change it before entering into drug conversations. Still a fair point =)

Maybe a nice picture of Jesus or the pope would better serve my cause?

 

[SilverHammerMan]

Hemp is bad, it leads to filthy hippies.

 

[Mardrax]

Putting the hemp/cannabis discussion aside here after having said 'hemp' is the common name for some plants of the 'cannabis' gender, thus rendering all discussion moot.

Also, afaik, hemp is not illegal to grow in the US, although its growth is regulated to be done by licensed growers. Among other things, they have been restricted in the numbers of female plants they can grow. This, however, is information recalled from the top of my head as I can't be bothered to re-research it right now, and probably the specificities vary per state anyway.

Yes, hemp is a plant which is very versatile and could be used for a lot of things. Hence, I see no reason to forbid it. Wether or not all of these uses are viable options for their commonplace alternatives is a subject I wouldn't want to burn myself on.

As a drug, hemp has suffered a lot of stygmatisation, a lot of claims made without any proper research, and a whole lot of improper research to back up some other claims to boot.
Even without futher burning my fingers on those subjects, I would think most of us agree that using marijuana has associated 'health' and social complications.
A lot of these could be mitigated by using a vaporiser/inhaler rather than traditional smoking. Me being an old stoner however, that point is moot by robbing it of most of the enjoyability.

Of these social repercussions which are feared however, I can only state from experience.

To state where I get that experience: I live in the Netherlands, where sale (by licensed shops) and consumption of marijuana is in fact condoned, if done by anyone over the age of 18. (contrary to it being legal, which is untrue) Growth is condoned to the point where no prosecution or fine results from growing 5 plants or under per household. Carrying is condoned up to 5 grams per person. Consumption is condoned on provate property, or in stores that sell the drug, if they specifically allow it. (made complex by today's anti-smoking laws, where smoking in an establishment is forbidden. Hence only smoking the drug pure is allowed in such places, unless they have a smoking area) To answer the side issue raised by the OP, driving under the influence is strictly forbidden. In fact, being outside while under the influence is forbidden, although largely condoned.

I can say that I don't see a significantly increased ammount of users of the drug compared to what I've seen in other countries, both European and American. Hence, the effect on culture as a whole is comparable.

I do see that stores selling the drug regulate the consumption of it by a whole lot. I do see a significantly lower level of younger users. I do see people in smaller towns being unable to buy over 5 grams a day, because there's only one shop in town, and that's the legal limit you can carry. It's also a de facto limit on sales to a single person per day for a lot of shops. I do see shops having a good selection at a price far more fair than I've seen anywhere else. Even if legalisation would plop a 20% sales tax on top, it would still be a fair bit cheaper than the going price in most countries is. I do see shops who know where they're buying the stuff from, who does the growing, and what goes in it. Because of that, I also see shopkeepers who can give excellent advise on how strong a product is, and even some of them keeping out the stuff they consider too heavy, or overpricing it to make it less attractive to the heavier users.
The 'gateway' drug theory rings as utter bulcrap to me, as far as I have seen. As far has been researched here as well. Although I can imagine getting in touch with the 'shadier' side of society to get your stuff puts you in touch with people who use heavier stuff as well. When will people start blaming people instead of substance for their actions?
Also, which is perhaps one of the heftier reasons that speak in favour of a more lenient policy, I see no people living with a criminal record because they decided to do some experimenting and maybe stuck with using a drug which is a far cry from the horror of something like cocaine, and were unlucky enough to be the ones caught. I see no already down on their luck people being fined for money they barely have. I see no police force overburdening themselves with a task that isn't strictly necessary.

Although largely, the main reasoning would go towards comparing it with other drugs, where the main suspect would be of course the omnipresent ethanol.
As far as addiction goes, the consensus seems to be it is about as addicting as alcohol. As far as effect goes, in moderate usage, although different, its effects are on a level comparable to those of alcohol. I know for a fact that a lot more damage is done by people who've had too much to drink, than by those who've had too much to smoke. Especially on a case by case bases. I know there are no known diseases or disorders officially associated with prolonged usage of marijuana. When used before the age of 16 -18?- is known to hamper development of the brain, which would thus be permanent, a case also to be made for alcohol. I do know that prolonged usage of alcohol is very firmly linked to Korsakov's disease. Something which is roughly comparable to Alzheimer's.

All in all, I would say usage of marijuana is less harmful than usage of alcohol. Both to society, and the individual. Of course, you will get rotten apples who act irresponsibly, but there, they are to blame, not the substance they've used.
A simple comparison tells me there is no reason why marijuana should be banned, and alcohol shouldn't. Not to mention tobacco. None that I see anyway.
If anyone can give me a well funded reason why it should though, I'm always open.

 

[lizards]

well within restraints but sure

we shouldnt sell it to under 21 year olds but for over its fine

 

[Strategia]

Hemp should be legal, and IMO so should cannabis. Your friend may have been killed by a stoned driver, but then again drunk driving is illegal (and IMO and those of countless others with or without personal experience, not punished nearly heavily enough), so why should stoned driving be?

Besides, banning the product doesn't lead to anything except organised crime and poorer quality, even immediately dangerous, product. I'm sure you've all heard of the Prohibition, and how this gave rise to massive criminal cartels, and how home-brew or illegally brewn alcohol could cause symptoms such as blindness and death upon ingestion. The same thing applies with any other kind of drug, yet most Western nations have been attempting to eradicate drug use by completely banning it for decades despite the fact that such attempts have been proven futile, counterproductive and immensely dangerous.

Add to that the fact that if cannabis is legalised, and marijuana and joints would be sold next to tobacco and cigarettes, taxes could be levied on them amounting to millions or perhaps even billions of dollars. Compare that to what the US is currently spending on anti-drug enforcement. Yes, drug use might increase, but regulation and taxation would make the resulting situation so much better in all respects.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

Aside from the fact its pretty immature and intellectually cowardly to legislate against personal habits that do not affect others (driving a vehicle stoned, or under the influence of anything is a different matter, thats reckless and stupid), the indisputable fact remains that prohibition does not work, and inevitably involves pissing mountains of cash away.
You wont see cannabis legalised in any western country as its not a vote winner- wheras scaring the crap out of ignorant curtain twitchers and giving them a phatnom to blame their ills on (and promising to protect them from said phantom) will. People are thick as pig shit and fall for this nonsense every time- I'd be bothered by this, but thanks to the fact that people are thick as pigshit, I can pretty much get up to whatever I like without getting caught. Time to skin up, bleat away bitches, I not listening, you can't stop me...

 

[iblis666]

lets see the legalization of marijuana and cannabis could lessen drug enforcement costs, law enforcement costs, increase tax revenue, help the environment, use less petroleum based products,remove many people from the criminal system, and much much more.

The only real draw back is that people will be getting high which causes problems with judgment, laziness, and over eating, all things that we have problems with now and more than likely would not make much of a impact.

 

[Mozared]

It really doesn't matter. It's legal where I live and while we've got plenty of idiots to go around, it's not like the entire country is made up out of potheads. The only difference it would technically make in my eyes is that the product would be completely taken out of the shady circuit and you've done a fairly good step in thwarting criminality.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMQzRFvCIY

Pretty much sums things up.

 

[Undercover]

As long as all the effects that makes it a narcotic (ie mind altering effects, feeling of being high) are not present and it has not side effects like that, then i guess so. But not to be used a drug. Im against weed smoking.

Legally speaking, Marijuana is NOT a narcotic. Marijuana is essentially Cannabis and thus Cannabis is not a narcotic either. The definition of the word Narcotic can be a noun or an adjective, therefore, marijuana could be used in speech as being a narcotic, but the word in legal terms would not apply. I know, Semantics. But relevant semantics.

Yes I am a pot smoker, (See the avatar?) And I completely disagree with Marijuana prohibition, but not for the reasons you might think. I am against it because the laws making it illegal are based on lies, hypocrisy and greed, not because like, I enjoy getting like, totally high, dude.

I would bet my LIFE that most of you don't even know why pot is illegal in the first place. It sure as hell isn't because its harmful!

To sum it up, in the early 1930's a means to process hemp was developed that would revolutionize the pulp, paper and textile industries, this process involved the use of harmless chemicals (Hydrogen Peroxide) in the bleaching process, and produced a much higher quality final product than the processes being used to manufacture paper and cotton, and at a much smaller cost, and the leftover cellulose could be used to make literally thousands of different products.

Here's where the greed comes in. The two companies that stood to lose billions (And this is 1930's money, remember that) of dollars in revenue if this new technology were accepted were the Hearsts (Newspaper magnates) and the DuPonts. (Textiles, petrochemicals, plastics etc.) They had to find a way to destroy this threat to their vast profits, so what did they do about it? Hemp was harmless and they knew it, so they couldn't attack it directly, but wait, can't you smoke the female plant? Isn't it a drug? YEAH! LET'S ATTACK THAT! The short story is they hired a lawyer by the name of Harry Ansliger, who was responsible for such smear campaigns as "Black men who smoke pot rape white women" and other such ridiculous claims. I could go into much greater detail, but that would take all day. Basically what he did was lie, cajole, manipulate and threaten whoever he needed to in order to get the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act [http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/25116.html] passed. This of course was after his buddies made sure he got a seat in the senate. This incredibly racist law was based on pure fantasy, unmitigated greed and outright lies. Again, I don't want to go into too much detail, but when this 'law' was passed, it wasn't even read. The air conditioning was broken in the courthouse and all any of the politicians wanted to do was escape the heat. (Source: The Emperor Wears No Clothes: by Jack Herer [http://marijuanabookstore.com/?gclid=CPSn3K-x9ZsCFQ6jagodzDAm-g])

Sound familiar? The 'Patriot Act' was passed without being read, either.

The lies have been propagated over the past 70+ years to include the "Gateway drug" fallacy among others. For example, in the early 70's then senator Ronald Reagan commissioned a 'Scientific study' on the effects of marijuana smoke on the human brain. His 'researcher' strapped several rhesus monkeys to a chair and forced them to inhale the equivalent of no less than 10 joints in rapid succession through a face mask. The result? Each monkey was then killed and dissected, and the conclusion was that marijuana irrefutably caused brain damage. This was when everyone's favourite Playboy, Hugh Hefner stepped in and sued the US government, demanding full disclosure of the research. He won, and what was discovered was indeed disturbing. One small detail had been omitted from the final report, the fact that these monkeys were forced to inhale marijuana smoke and nothing but marijuana smoke for the duration of the experiment. Of COURSE that's going to cause brain damage, the mammalian brain just like all others needs oxygen, and these poor creatures were deprived of it.

The reason why this was covered up is simple. Marijuana is harmless. It has ZERO toxicity, is not physically addictive, and poses no threat to anyone. Had this been the publicized outcome, the US government would have had to admit they were full of shit. As it stood, they did everything they could to keep the lawsuit from the mainstream media.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter was a few steps away from decriminalizing Marijuana. In a speech to Congress, Carter stated : "The penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use." Unfortunately, a member of his cabinet was hit with a cocaine charge, so ever being the politician, Carter dropped the subject. Convenient, huh?

Here's where the hypocrisy comes in. During World War II, Americans were urged to "Grow Hemp For Victory!" Because hemp, as the government has always known, is a far superior fiber to cotton, as its strands are much, much longer, thereby making any rope or cloth that much stronger. When George Bush Senior, captain "Anti-Drug" himself had to bail out of his fighter after being shot down, what do you think the strings on his parachute were made from?

The United States Constitution is written on Hemp paper.

All over North America, indeed all over the WORLD, law enforcement officials and politicians are coming forward in support of ending marijuana prohibition [http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php] because they are tired of the lies, tired of hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding, productive citizens having their families and their very lives destroyed because some neighbour saw them smoke a joint. The battle cry is "We're doing it for the children." Which children? The ones being traumatized for life after watching their parents get taken away in handcuffs, never to be seen again as they get thrown into the foster care system and forgotten? Hypocrisy, lies, deceit and greed are the hallmarks of Marijuana prohibition.

The drug laws don't work, period. So unless any of you can come up with legitimate, VALID arguments, don't quote me and don't reply to me. I'm not interested in your stories (Sincere apologies to Chiefmon, I don't mean to belittle your tragedy, but vastly more people are killed by drunk drivers than by drivers who are stoned. Your friend's death was the fault of a fool, and I hope they live a long and miserable life with the knowledge they killed someone.)

Alcohol accounts for more death, destruction and misery than all other drugs combined, and it is perfectly legal. We know for a fact that cigarettes cause cancer, and yet they are still legal. There is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF AT ALL WHATSOEVER THAT MARIJUANA IS TOXIC, ADDICTIVE OR DANGEROUS IN ANY WAY. The only way it could hurt you is if a bale of it were to fall on you.

(EDIT) Whoops, ok I can admit when I've made a mistake. Apparently there is a lethal dose of marijuana. Ah, I can practically see the anti-drug crusaders grinning in anticipation.

You ready for this?

According to the US Government's own research, the lethal dose of marijuana is at least one-third your body weight, consumed in fifteen minutes. If it is smoked, about half of the active ingredient is lost in side stream smoke, so you would have to smoke about two-thirds of your body weight in marijuana, in about fifteen minutes. There has never been a recorded lethal overdose in humans from the use of marijuana in any form.

The best evidence on lung cancer comes from Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, who is the leading researcher on that topic. His latest research shows that marijuana smokers actually have a slightly lower incidence of lung cancer than people who do not smoke at all. This may be because the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, is known to kill various types of tumors. Marijuana may have a slight protective effect against certain types of cancers. The most comprehensive long-term study of the effects of marijuana was done by Kaiser Permanente. They studied the records of over 65,000 patients over a period of years. They found that there were no significant differences in the health histories of marijuana smokers versus non-smokers.

There has never been a recorded human overdose from marijuana. According to which US Government authority you want to believe, the lethal dose of marijuana is either one-third your body weight, or 1,500 pounds, consumed in fifteen minutes. Researchers hired by the Drug Enforcement Agency have reported that it is nearly impossible to find a dose of marijuana large enough that it will kill a RAT.

You can research this yourself here [http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm] and here. [http://www.druglibrary.org/crl/aging/sidney-01.html]

In my case, I would have to smoke roughly 133 pounds of pot in 15 minutes to overdose. Somehow I don't think I could pull it off, but if someone wants to foot the bill, I'll sure as hell try.

Everything above in italics was taken from this webpage [http://www.reddit.com/r/Marijuana/comments/93cf1/marijuana_potency_vs_potential_harm/] so I cannot take credit for any of the information or research. Thanks go out to Elrox on reddit.com for doing the legwork.

To the nay-sayers I put this: I have scientific facts and history on my side. What do you have other than the laws written by greedy old men? Men whose only interest is their own?

By the way, I smoked a rather large joint just before writing this. Do I sound like a rambling stoner? Yeah, I didn't think so.

You have all been lied to about this your entire lives, doesn't that piss you off?