Poll: Weed - Legal or Illegal?

[FolkLikePanda]

Make like Amsterdam, smoke in certified places. Plus if you make weed legal over the counter it will make it distant from other illegal, harder drugs that dealers maybe possessing thus preventing (or at least aiding against) addiction to harder drugs.

 

[n03s]

Easy there sunshine..
I have smoked weed and I have drank a lot of booze as well, those things are equaly bad for ones health..
What I am saying which obviously you missed is that IF sedative narcotics (LIKE VALIUM AND OTHER PILL SHIT) are already LEGAL and mainstream , natural crops like cannabis should be legal with the same laws as alcohol..

Also in what you quote... when i said Im not a chemist.. It means that I cant explain like a REAL chemist the exact diffrences between THC(Cannabis chemical compound that leads to euphoria) and Ethanol (Alcohol chemical compound that leads to euphoria)
How you deducted that I am clueless, is your buissness and frankly I dont even care about some random smartass..

I clearly misinterpreted your post, my apologies.

No problem at all, its a hard subject after all, so misunderstandings will happen.

 

[Kanaan Brood]

It should be legalized, regulated and taxed. As a bartender for the last 25 years I would rather have a bar full of pot smokers than alcoholics. In my opinion far more harm is done by alcoholism. Most of the long term pot smokers I know are undetectable as such. They are not the stereotypical stoner. They are just normal people. If you would like to read a intelligently written article on the subject follow the link below. The Fraser Institute is a research group in Canada.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=13187

 

[punksnotdead]

I'll tell you what about weed. We don't really have any good data to see if its bad or not, cause there haven't been any real studies on its affects. I do know from experience, it's not additive. We do know that it isn't chemically additive. It could be mentally, just like anything else, good or bad, so thats a stupid argument. Also, I refuse to live my life in fear, even if it is modernly dangerous.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Alcohol causes tons of problems, from experience (well, considering half my friends anyways) weed simply makes you a veggie, and gives you the munchies (unless your like me, then it makes you paranoid.)

Really though, it's safer than alcohol, and I could go into all the good effects but I'll leave it at that.

It's legal here in Colorado, my mother was a dispensery intern so I know all I need to know about weed to know its not as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

Well, aside from those who become addicted to it.

 

[katsumoto03]

All drugs should be legal.
It's a matter of principles not wheter it's beneficial to society or not (and I really don't think it would make any lasting significant difference in the rates of consumption).

This. You should be fired immediately if you come to work, or hell, even leave your house under the influence of drugs. But honestly, we really should have the right to consume whatever the fuck we want.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Sure,just keep it in a controlled and taxed zone for my evil plans!

 

[gundamrx101]

I'd be fine with it being legal if people could handle their s***. Personally I don't find weed as "amazing" as everyone made it out to be, and these people go overboard and do nothing but waste their time on weed and abuse it, fueling their mental addiction. Till people can handle it better then what the majority shows, then I don't see it becoming legal

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

]Actually this is completely untrue. "Skunk" and "hydroponic crap" are just better-grown, better-bred varieties. There's really no indication that modern cannabis is any more harmful than cannabis from the 60s (or contemporary lower-quality cannabis). Hydroponic growth also typically requires fewer pesticides, which can be extremely dangerous.

The overwhelming majority of the studies showing large differences between the THC content of cannabis from the 60s and today have been discredited by most major research organisations. Most of the measurements from the 60s were of confiscated bricks of extremely low-quality (by 60s standards) cannabis taken from police lockers they had been sitting in for months if not years. The THC content has certainly gone up, but not anywhere near the level that gets thrown around so often. Hydroponic growth is also not some fancy new invention that didn't exist in the 60s: it's pretty easy to set up, easier to conceal, and grows much higher-quality, lower-variability product.

You assume I get my numbers from the anti-weed lobby, when I actually get them from dealers. I got this one mate who hates skunk. I mean I can't say anything from personal experience, but since he's the one that sells the stuff, I'm generally going to take his word over what either lobby says because frankly they're both full of idiots.

What I assume is that your numbers are either completely invented or that they are, at least indirectly, from incompetent or biased sources. In reality, if you want to know about such things, you look at independent sources that aren't interested in either side of the lobby and just want to know how things have changed for the sake of knowing things have changed (this is mostly academic sources). The highest result in such sources that I'm aware of shows a difference in THC content of about 100%. Most show something more like 25%. Almost all show no difference in content for other cannabinoids (THC isn't the only thing in cannabis that has an effect on humans).

More importantly, however, it has been repeatedly shown that users adapt extremely quickly to different potencies - the end result being that higher potency cannabis just means that a user doesn't need as much to achieve the same high.

And finally, even if it were 5000% more potent, how is that a problem so long as there are still no known deleterious health effects? The argument regarding the increased strength seems to me to be based on comparison to other drugs which have increasingly deleterious effects with increased potency.

Also, why on earth would you assume a dealer would be either knowledgable or honest about this? For the most part, he's in the business of telling people that the sort of drugs he's selling are more powerful than they'd expect. And dealers aren't particularly well-known for their research skills (more likely, he either just "heard" this or believes it based on personal circumstantial evidence).

 

[ENKC]

First of all, if you're advocating the legalisation of a recreational drug, the onus is on you to prove it is safe - not the other way around.

Why, did you think your argument was too credible without you trying to invert burden of evidence?

You claimed that smoking pot, and I quote "has tremendously harmful effects". That is a statement that you need to prove, or I'll call bullshit on that.

My argument is the accepted position in the medical and scientific communities, as well as the judiciary, government and much of society at large. So yes, I do feel it's credible to place the burden of evidence on you.

Secondly, there is any amount of scientific evidence to this effect. Asking me for it is like demanding that I prove the consensus on global warming. But this is one recent example that springs to mind: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3132596.htm

That isn't even a case study, it's a meta-study of cases over many years. Unfortunately, it's just a news article, so what the study entails, or even what the conclusions are as published in the study are unknown.

But let's say it's all perfectly legitimate. Let's say not a single one of those case studies was commissioned by governments with the expressed intention of proving that cannabis is evil. Is less than three years earlier onset of psychotic symptoms in people who would've developed them anyway and smoked regularly to be considered "tremendously harmful effects"?

Is a 1 percentage unit increase in probability of developing schizophrenia, which is not even proven to be a causal link, to be considered "tremendously harmful effects"

You're going to have to try harder than that.

The conclusions published in the study aren't 'unkown'. I think you'll find they know what they are. And if you wished to find out in greater detail, you could. "You wouldn't, though."

And damn straight, I regard an increased risk of one of the most devastating mental illnesses a person can suffer from as "tremendously harmful effects". Would you play Russian roulette with a hundred round clip?

Besides which you're dismissing meta-studies as useless for no other reason than you don't like it's findings. Also in the same post as you've told me you don't know the results, you've also told me they haven't proved a causal link. Care to think that one through?

And you should also consider that I provided it as an example. What do you want, links to every study ever conducted on marijuana usage?

You're going to have to try harder than that.

This is confirmation of what anyone who works in a field related to mental health care sees every day - marijuana alters peoples' brain chemistry, is especially damaging to young, developing minds

As opposed to alcohol, which is healthier the earlier in your life you drink it!

I would like to see the figures for onset of mental illness related to alcohol intake. You wouldn't, though.

Pure, unadulterated straw man. I never mentioned alcohol, nor do I dispute that it's harmful - which is why I drink very little of it. The extreme sarcasm of this part of your post does you no credit, and telling me what I think about something I never mentioned is ludicrous.

and acts as a gateway into other drugs.

...something that isn't even touched upon in the article, IE you pulled it out of your arse.

See above point. It was an example, and not a study about gateway drugs. There are no shortage of figures on gateway drugs. So unless you're telling me everyone who does 'hard' illicit drugs skips there without using cannabis as a more accessible starting point, then to suggest that I 'pulled it of my arse' is absurd.

 

[Olrod]

So... given all the damage alcohol can do (things like liver damage, increased aggression and recklessness, dangerous driving, etc.) why isn't it given the same legal status as cannabis?

 

[Electrogecko]

I vote keep it illegal. I don't want more 'stoners' driving.

I take it you are in favor of making alcohol completely illegal, then?

Irrelevant to my post and the thread.

What?

It doesn't have to be legal to drive under the influence of a legal substance....or are you saying that anybody who smokes weed (stoners, w/e your definition) shouldn't ever be allowed to drive?

The bluntness and complete incorrectness of your post is astounding. His question was relevant to both your post and the thread.

Edit: Oh and I voted to legalize it because....umm....duh.

I don't want more people under the influence of drugs driving. Key word is more.

That's why I say no, and that's why alcohol has nothing to do with it.

If you insist tho, sure, I also don't want more people drinking and driving.

If you don't want more people drinking and driving, then shouldn't alcohol be made illegal?

And of course when deciding whether a drug should be legal or not we're going to draw comparisons to other recreational drugs.

You are so right. Heroin should be legal too, same for crack cocaine. You just converted me.

But yes, lets make alcohol the only thing illegal. This would make the world better. My incredibly ignorant desire to have less people smoke weed and drive shames me. If we legalize it, less people would obviously drive while under the influence.

Thanks again.

I'm not sure which part of this you're having trouble understanding. If you apply your logic to alcohol, (which, despite what you may think, is a perfectly legitimate argument for the topic) than you would deduce that we should make alcohol illegal. Are you saying that more people would drive drunk if we were to outlaw alcohol?

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Well it doesn't really matter if it's legalized or not,people already smoking pot will continue doing so no matter if this changes or not.

If they do legalize it though,then I bet it will be much more expensive to buy.

 

[Biosophilogical]

As long as you can still fire people on the spot for coming to work stoned and they are not allowed to drive while stoned then I do not care.
Sure it has long term side effects and totally destroys your memory but eh, thats your problem.

Maybe make the legal age for it something like 30. When either you are employed and fully matured (and therefore you have complete responsibility for your actions (i.e. you can't blame immaturity)), or when you haven't got a proper future within your society, and if you are the type to smoke weed then you probably wouldn't have a much brighter future anyway. Kind of a balance between "people can do wha thtye want to their own bodies" and the "protect the children" argument.

EDIT: Though I would like to clarify. I'd prefer that it be legal, but that it retain a heavily negative social stigma. I mean, if you really want to risk drug addiction, meantal health problems, lung problems, financial problems, etc, then that is your choice (once you are well and truly past the maturation stage of life, so that you are in a position to actually make life-changing decisions). But at the same time, I'd prefer it if society (and all its members) were of the opinion that substances such as marijuana were not preferable.

So kind of "When you are at full physiological maturity, you should have the right to do what you wish to yourself, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others" with a heavy leaning towards a negative societal view of physically/mentally harmul and addictive drugs.

However, given that society has not reached a stage where all but a significant minority can be trusted with access to drugs, then legalising them would probably have a terrible effect on the yougner generations as the older generations improperly enforce the age restriction for substance use, and the younger generations' ideals cause them to try these drugs at a stage where they are not responsible enough to use them responsibly, and not physically mature enough to be able to handle them.

So ideally I'd want 'legal but with a heavy negative social stigma', but realistically I'll go with illegal, simply because people aren't ready for it.