Poll: Should they legalize pot?

[Sebass]

I noticed something about that graph. Why are hard drugs like Acid and Meth less harmful than alcohol? I call shenanigans.

Acid is relatively safe and I have no idea why you're bringing up meth because it doesn't even appear on that chart .. ? The closest related is 'amphetamine' (meth is short for methamphetamine) which is indicated to be more damaging than alcohol. Perhaps you're referring to methylphenidate? That is not meth: it's ritalin.

I refer you to my post right below yours. Namely that pot has over 350 TOXIC CHEMICALS! but yea, besides those, marijuana's fine.

I've only ever read that on anti-pot propaganda sites tbh ..

"At any rate, pot's bad for you, shouldn't be legalized, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they are most likely very ignorant of the facts. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter what you tell them, they have too much of a bias to see past there narrow view point. "

I found it on an independent scientific journal, tbh.

But I guess your right. Pro-pot propagandists would NEVER lie to you and hide information. Because that stuff NEVER happens.

Really, are you that ignorant? I mean REALLY?

I'm starting to think that the reason you get into fights might have something to do other than some weedsmokers' aggresive behavior ..

No, pro-pot propagandist are ually even worse than the anti-pot equivalent (damn hippies ..) but that doesn't mean that this 350 toxins 'fact' shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt. See even if there are 350 toxins (which is a HUGE) number, as you said: this is in such small quantities that they are negligible. Sola dosis facit venenum. Even googling for them barely gives any results. Many studies have been done and they consider cannabis relatively harmless. Besides, if these chemicals are so toxic, there should have been at least a reported death from them right?

Also, I spit on the notion that anything that is remotely bad for you should be avoided.

 

[Lord Krunk]

I think so because its less addictive and it does less physicall harm than tobacco or alcohol, I think you should only be able to smoke it in your own home, someone elses house if your permitted or in a designated area, much like Amsterdam isn't it? Anyway yeah legalize it, because I have never seen anyone get violent after smoking pot, they always seem relaxed and friendly, unlike drink where those things do happen but people get fucking violent aswell.

I've seen people get violent.

Same here, several times. Ruined an otherwise awesome Christmas party as well.

 

[The Last Nomad]

I refer you to my post right below yours. Namely that pot has over 350 TOXIC CHEMICALS! but yea, besides those, marijuana's fine.

I was gonna ask you where you got that stat but after seeing your post

I found it on an independent scientific journal, tbh.

But I guess your right. Pro-pot propagandists would NEVER lie to you and hide information. Because that stuff NEVER happens.

Really, are you that ignorant? I mean REALLY?

An intependant site? They called themselves an indepentant site? They are hardely going to say that they are an anti-pot site, then people wouldn't believe them. Believing the first thing you read about a subject is a bit naive, but whatever, maybe its true, in fact it probably is. 350 sounds about right. But like you said

Of those 60(chemicals with positive effects), only four are found in such quantities that it would have any affect on humans

The same applies for the 350 bad ones. I'm not sure of the exact facts or numbers but most of the early pot tests were done on monkeys. Which showed effects that have never been recorded in humans.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I'm not US so my opinion doesn't matter here much. But No keep it illegal, I'm Pro-"do what ever the fuck you want just stay out of my life" attitude.
But I don't want to have anything to with people who aren't sober. I hate alcohol I Have tasted didn't like, never drank since (that was 6 years ago when I was 13), I hate people who are drunk on something, I just hate speaking to them they say things and do things they wouldn't. I haven't ever smoked, and I will not start, I got a friend who can't go to the movies b's he needs to get a smoke in between.

Yeah personal rant over.
How would we regulate it? Who is allowed to smoke, when and how much?
I still fucks up your mind, and can cause danger to others around you. In traffic, work enviroment etc.

 

[Phlakes]

Tobacco and alcohol are legal because they always have been, (except for that one time, I forgot which year) even before we knew they were unhealthy. With other drugs, we already know that they're unhealthy, and we can keep people from using them.

Also, for anyone who uses drugs, not to judge or anything, but I'm sure there's a reason why people want to quit.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Okay, maybe I will go out and give my opinion.

I don't want it legalised because I've seen some fucked up people do some fucked up things. The less said, the better. Fact of the matter is, when its illegal people do it secretively and that means that they're out of the way of normal society. If people are going to be in public giggly fits (which I'm hoping, if it does get legalised, goes under 'drunk and disorderly') blocking paths, being violent and out of control and just fucking annoying, then no. I really don't want to deal with that shit.

Plus it stinks worse than most cigarette brands, and I hate that smell too.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Most drug laws in our country (US) were originally passed out of racist fears towards minorities in the 20s and 30s. As far as research that people claim about pot killing braincells that all goes back to a study done under the Nixon administration where monkeys were forced to inhale nothing but marijuana smoke for 5 minutes at a time. Anybody with even a shred of common sense would tell you that there is nothing that shows that its more harmful than anything else thats already legal right now. I say legalize everything and just let people live with the consequence of their decisions.

It actually causes lung cancer five times as fast as smoking tobacco. Not an old study either. Done by a university within the last decade.


?You would think that pot had some kind of power; I mean come on, it's a plant, not a reason for living. Controlled by a plant, how hilarious. A plant! A fucking plant!? -Henry Rollins

 

[Bigeyez]

You'd eliminate source of income for criminal organization. (Sure nowhere near as big as the real money makers like crack/meth, but anything helps)

You'd likely see a quick surge in usage once it's legalized followed by a downward trend in usage once that "cool" factor disappears.

Like tobacco it would be a very good source of tax income for the federal government.

Lke Alchohol we already know that regardless of it's legal status it's ingrained into the culture of America at this point and legalizing it, putting restrictions on it, and enforcing those restrictions will reduce many of the dangers surrounding buying/using an illegal drug.

I don't smoke or drink btw.

 

[Chechosaurus]

They decriminalised all drugs in Portugal and all drug related crime has plummeted so have teenage pregnancy, alcohol and overall drug abuse. Also, if it's legalised, it can be regulated and taxed. One of the major issues with cannabis is that the strength varies so widely from boarder-line garden grass to fuck-you-up skunk; the latter being the one that is causing all of these "mental problems" regardless of the fact that THC contains anti-psychosis properties.

Furthermore, a big issue with weed is teenagers of 13-16 smoking it and its at that age when the damage is done. However, if it's legal, they will struggle buying it until they are of the legal age. Of course some people will get their hands on it but it wont be as easy. When I was in high school, I could score some weed whenever I fancied.

Another argument for it's legalisation is that growers and sellers could move into the business legally .i.e. growers could work on farms and sellers could run the specialist shops that it would ideally be sold in.

You've also got to remember that drug crime comes from the fact that drugs are illegal. People don't go and illegally buy some 80% proof moonshine when they can just head down the shop and get some proper alcohol. If you want to buy weed you often have to deal with some shady people who deal stuff like smack. A lot paranoia from weed stems from the fear of being arrested for smoking a joint or your dealers house being raided whilst your there. There is also the fact that a lot of students smoke weed and we aren't criminals. We may be a bit irresponsible at times but we are the people who will be your doctor, lawyer or teachers. If a student gets caught with weed in this country, you get fucked in the arse and all career prospects are over just because Gordon Brown said so. There is no prospect of that changing under the fascist coalition.

 

[Lucifron]

snip

Morals that say "if sufferring can be reduced it is our duty to do so.

All of your points rely on the assumption that it is possible to predict who will be adversely mentally affected by weed which is incorrect, as there is currently no accurrate way of knowing. Mental illness can be made worse, yes, but it can also unstablise people with no prior family/personal problems.

And your points rely on the assumption that it wouldn't be utilitarian to legalize pot, but more on that after this message:

I am not of the opinion that pot should be endorsed by any government, quite the opposite, but it shouldn't be illegal. I doubt that there are many people with a history of mental illness that are stupid enough to take any psychoactive substances, and there would be even less if some actual education would be provided, and there are probably even less people who "happen" to receive chronic damage from smoking pot.
I'm not saying that it's possible to be completely accurate in any predictions about these cases, but I am saying that the possibility of a most minor minority falling ill from something they know the dangers of, which is completely optional and probably only hastens the breakout of inevitable symptoms, isn't enough of an argument for a complete ban on weed. Besides, some actual research on the subject probably would allow us to be 100% accurate in predicting said reactions.

And now, our feature presentation:

You go on to say that legalizing weed would result in more suffering than what is yielded today with its status as a narcotic. I say that you couldn't be more wrong, due to one simple fact: The illegal marijuana industry causes infinitely more suffering than a legalization ever would.
I could go on about how all heavy stoners are already heavy stoners, how most people wouldn't overuse etc... but all that is unnecessary. Just think about it. According to this [http://abcnews.go.com/business/story?id=2735017&page=1] ABC News article, the revenue from the illegal US marijuana industry is just shy of $36 billion dollars, exceeding the combined value of corn and wheat. The majority of this money is collected by organized criminals. Consider what this money funds. Human trafficking. Extortion. Prostitution. Arms-trade. Murderers and rapists. The suffering of humans alone should be enough of a case for legalization. Combine that with the massive economic benefits of taxed marijuana and the end of pumping cash into the largest(?) part of the war on drugs, and you have nothing to lose by legalizing weed.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

I say no. It's still a drug no matter how mind altering it is.

My beliefs in this are so strong I've even lost a girlfriend to it. Bah.

 

[Quid Plura]

To legalize pot doesn't mean that everyone will start smoking all of the sudden. I'm from Holland, we've got it legalized, and no one pays attention to it. I believe that the numbers even prove that in Holland, less people smoke pot than in for example the US.

Besides, it will be there, and by banning it, you push it into the world of organized crime, and you're not sure of the quality. I believe we even have laws about the quality of pot here.

 

[Downfall89]

people want to smoke pot because to them it's cool and edgy. Take away the cool and edgy part and reduce it to Tobacco and I think we'll start getting somewhere as a society.

If it could be legally sold and the US government taxed it, we'd be out of debt in a year.

I'd vote to legalize it just so stoners have nothing to talk about anymore.

These three fine posters have every angle of this argument covered. Good on ya, mates!

That pretty much sums it up.

OT: I voted "No" as I actually don't know the specific health risks if there are any. I guess I'm just abiding to the fear campaign, but I don't doubt that marijuana is worse than alcohol or tobacco.

So you support four different posters who would legalize it, then go on to state that you voted "No" on the poll on whether legalization would be a sound plan --- Then you argue that it is probably not worse than alcohol or tobacco.

I'm sorry, but is it just me or are you not making much sense?

Haha, yeah sorry.. Must be high.

I think I pretty much mean I'm undecided, but if they legalised it I wouldn't be against it. Tax it, make plenty of money. Not that complicated.

 

[hongimaster]

I think it should be Decriminalised (for those who do not know the difference between Decriminalisation and Legalisation -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization )

Essentially, as long as people are using it in a way which cannot directly endanger others, I don't see why it is a criminal act. An example, if a Person is caught Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis, it should be dealt with quite harshly. If a person is sitting at home, using it away from children and other people who do not want to be exposed, then go for it. I don't see how it is any different to alcohol.

 

[RYjet911]

Why is everyone only focusing on the smoking use for weed?

The plant is so versatile. I stated in an earlier post that it's useful in making fuel, paper, clothing and building material. The figures of using it to smoke alone should be incentive enough to get the money rolling in and get us out of the economic crisis. Taking its other uses into account...

The clothing industry is huge. Money made.

The paper industry is huge. Money made.

Cheap, renewable building materials are in high demand, at least in places where it's particularly dangerous due to environmental hazards. Money made.

It's probably one of the most versatile plants in existence, and you can smoke it and get stoned too. It has no long term and mostly positive short term side effects to those without a family history of mental disorders.

True, it may exacerbate existing mental disorders, but so can alcohol. In fact, that can cause permanent brain damage, something which weed cannot do, along with liver damage, various forms of cancer, addiction... (Unless a load of monkeys are being suffocated, being pumped full of weed without oxygen for five minutes at a time)

The bad statistics regarding weed are generally overhyped, manipulated statistics not directly related to weed, just some form of correlation between the two. Most studies regarding it omit certain pieces of information to allow the government to continue prohibiting it. See the example of the old monkey experiment. It's disgusting to think they suffocated monkeys so badly they got brain damage, then said it was the weed that did it.

 

[jeejvebe]

Dosen't matter to me.

 

[Hawgh]

Sure, I doubt it's more harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

 

[UberNoodle]

I would hazard a guess that many people I meet who would vote 'yes' here, would say so because of how cool or like 'insert iconic pot smoking movie character' it would make them look. What they don't realise is that once legalised, smoking pot will no longer be 'cool'. It will be common place. But perhaps those same people think that drinking and smoking are also cool. I have no idea.

I voted 'no' by the way, because having grown up in areas of Australia rife with all kinds of addiction, especially pot (cue someone's misguided argument that pot is not addictive - such people don't appreciate how addition works), I have seen first hand how destructive pot can be. Cue someone's argument about how many awesome and fantastic pot smokers they know. I have nothing against the people, and it takes all kinds.

Of course, there are factors with both correlating and causative relationships with pot, and seperating them might be impossible. However, legalising something simply because it IS a drug, seems illogical to me. Caffein, Nicotine and Alcohol are only legal because our society ended up structuring itself around their frequent use. Beer is thousands of years old, for interest's sake. Had history been different for the Western world, perhaps we'd be discussing some other drug now, while having a joint before bed.

I don't think that legalising pot without an actual reason, is a good idea. And before anyone jumps to slap an Hypocrisy Badge on me (who am I kidding, such people wouldn't have even read this far before replying!), I am aware of the socially encouraged drugs which we have, but its a cultural thing. And I don't buy any argument that pot is 'harmless' or 'no worse' than, for example, alcohol.