So Prop. 19 didnt go through (the one about Legalizing Marijuana)

[Xan Holbrook]

At least California get to vote on what laws get passed. I wish we had such a thing in the UK, other than smarmy eton boys telling us what to do all the time.

 

[JamesBr]

I've been railing about this for a while, so let me just break out the ol' argument machine.
Pot is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine.
Rates of violence would decrease if pot was government-regulated.
Revenue would increase.
The prison system would run much more efficiently and with much less of a backlog.
Mexican drug cartels would take a huge hit.
Etc. etc.

I want to continue along this line of reasoning. In 2007 nearly a third of the US prison system was dedicated to the incarceration of people who had committed non-violent drug offenses. We're talking possession here. Of that third, half of them were for possession of marijuana. This means that in 2007 a SIXTH of the prison system was dedicated solely to the incarceration of non-violent pot smokers who'se only victims, as far as the legal system is concerned, is themselves. This is more than the total number of incarcerate people in a half-dozen European country COMBINED! And nobody thinks there is anything wrong with this? Where is the effort towards stopping murderers, rapists and meth-labs?

Pot prohibition costs $10-$12 BILLION annually. I'll repeat that. POT PROHIBITION IS COSTING THE UNITED STATES UPWARDS OF 12 BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY. It's become an industry. They don't want pot legalized because prisons are privatized, they employ contractors, security guards, maintenance staff, pay electric bills, purchase food etc... The need for cops increases, more jobs are made, more money flows and the system keeps on grinding. And yet despite this, marijuana is THE most traded drug in the world. It is a multi-billion dollar industry, generating incredible amounts of money for the drug cartels that grow and sell the stuff. These drug cartels then use the money to produce and push harder, more dangerous drugs. And so many people seem to be unaware of this. Pot legalization would generate upwards of 6 billion dollars a year for the country!

Combine all of this with the things mentioned in my above post and we can see where the problem is. I don't understand how this level of ignorance can keep going on. We need to keep informing the public, keep pushing for reform and make people understand that weed is no more harmful (and is actually less harmful) then much of what is already legal and that legalization would help save many floundering states currently deep in recession. Prohibition never works, it didn't work with alcohol and it's only a matter of time for pot.

 

[WestMountain]

This is stupid, people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their own lives, including smoking Marijuana, where do we live? Soviet Russia?

 

[Gaz6231]

Is that the one for developing erectile dysfunction?

Ohhhhohoho SNAP

I think what this thread needs is some kitties.

 

[Pyro Paul]

So I've just skimmed the responses on this thread (11 pages, jesus I got here late) and see a lot of unfounded fear. As a regular pot smoker I am obviously opposed to the decision in California (I don't live there, or even in US for that matter, but the more precedents the better for all of us). Now, to all the detractors that claim it's addictive properties, I call bullshit. I smoked off and on for a while and have been smoking regularly (read: around a gram a DAY) for the past 2 years, I hold a perfectly respectable job, have an education and am socially well adjusted.

Now I have recently moved to a new city and as a result I have not touched the stuff in over a month. Guess what? No withdrawal. Oh sure, I got a little grumpy at first, but nothing that would be considered debilitating or along the lines of "God damn I need my fix man, GIMME MY FUCKING FIX MAN". Seriously? Is that what people perceive us stoners to be? I don't smoke at work, I don't smoke while driving, I'm not intoxicated in public in general (any more then someone going to a bar anyways). You know, just like with alcohol. Go figure. Why is it that everyone assumes if these laws pass they would have to deal with pot heads acting like idiots all the time, at work and so on? If someone showed up to work stonned and I was the boss, I'd fire his ass, same as if he was drunk.

It's medicinal properties are well documented, it relieves anxiety, increases appetite, relieves pain and improves overall disposition (as Robin Williams once put it "I've never met me an angry pot smoker before"). It's less harmful (and addictive) than tobacco, alcohol and caffeine. Safer then ANY over-the-counter pharmaceutical, is cheap and easy to produce (it grows in dirt after all) and is not chemically treated in any way. So what's the problem?

I suggest anyone here who doesn't know take a look at a 2001 law that was passed in Portugal, which decriminalized EVERY drug. Cannabis, cocaine, heroine, LSD, MDMA etc.. You name it, you can no longer be arrested for possession. Overdoses have dropped by HALF, HIV from sharing needles has dropped by SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT. These stats don't lie. I point you to this 2009 article of Scientific America (there are plenty of other articles on the subject, look it up):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

If you don't use drugs in any fashion (which I highly doubt as caffeine, alcohol and tobacco are all classified as drugs) then fine, more power to you. I applaud your choice. But get informed before screaming your hate for something you know nothing about. That's called bigotry motherfuckers. You might as well say that video games are murder simulators, women aren't people, and listening to heavy metal makes you a satanist. You may be intelligent, rational people, but when you spout this kind of ignorance you're just proving to the rest of us how regressive your country really is.

except there are many scientific studies which show that cannabis has negative health effects on the human body including degeneration of brain tissue and a myriad of other effects on an individuals mental state or psycho-social reactions/interactions. most of these are linked chemeical compounds seen in natural cannibus...

any case study which shows purely the positive effects of cannibus is using 'medical marijuana' which isn't a pure form but rather a heavily cut one excluding a lot of the negative and unknown chemical compounds but also a lot of the (arguably) positive ones as well. using these studies to form a debate is just as flawed and misinformed as using one of the heavily bias 'independent studies' which speaks only of its negatives.


the 2001 decrimilization of addictive chemical usage isn't the same as making marajuania legal. infact it is the complete opposite... Usage of all of the chemical compounds you said will still get you arrested and you'll still be brought to court where you can still be fined or cited for its usage.

What the 2001 law did was make Usage not lead to jail time... having a hit of one drug or a dime bag of another in the US can lead you to getting several months of jail time in a low to medium security penetentary. What this law did was prevent that... Getting caught with a drug in that country is similar to getting a ticket for driving over the speed limit in the US.

further more... the numbers Do lie.

presenting just a few sets of numbers (number of drug related deaths, number of drug related HIV infections) does not gauge its over all effectiveness. crime rates both petty and serious has gone up since 2001. gang activity has also increased over the years. and while neither of these can be directly connected to the legality over the usage of controlled substances they are not something you can just idly ignore when talking about it either.

 

[ThreeWords]

Ideas need representation, and if you don't resist the fools, then only fools vote, and your country goes to crap.

Holy crap I am struck dumb by the sheer amount of wisdom and genius behind that comment, no sarcasm. Where did you read that.

That's not a quote; that's how I talk when stupidity pisses me off.

[sup]If I'm that well received, I'll be on the Religion and Politics boards more often...p[/sup]

 

[Zechnophobe]

So you didn't vote, but you're complaining about the outcome? You realize if you DID vote you could have made a difference, and I can guarantee the people who fall into the "I don't vote" category is huge. People who don't vote shouldn't complain about the outcome. You didn't do your part to make a difference, or even attempt to, so why should you be bothered about how it went?

Please refer to the numbers our gracious host provided, one more vote in the "yes" would have done... let's see... absolute dick.
Quit that shit about "you can't complain because you didn't vote" as well. It's juvenile and really shows how naive you can be.

So, put it this way, this person, along with every other person who didn't vote, at some point PRIOR to finding out the results, decided not to. What was their logic then? How many people thought 'nah, I don't need to vote'? Enough to change the result?

Sadly we can pretty much NEVER know because that vote can't be counted since it wasn't made.

 

[JamesBr]

except there are many scientific studies which show that cannabis has negative health effects on the human body including degeneration of brain tissue and a myriad of other effects on an individuals mental state or psycho-social reactions/interactions. most of these are linked chemeical compounds seen in natural cannibus...

any case study which shows purely the positive effects of cannibus is using 'medical marijuana' which isn't a pure form but rather a heavily cut one excluding a lot of the negative and unknown chemical compounds but also a lot of the (arguably) positive ones as well. using these studies to form a debate is just as flawed and misinformed as using one of the heavily bias 'independent studies' which speaks only of its negatives.


the 2001 decrimilization of addictive chemical usage isn't the same as making marajuania legal. infact it is the complete opposite... Usage of all of the chemical compounds you said will still get you arrested and you'll still be brought to court where you can still be fined or cited for its usage.

What the 2001 law did was make Usage not lead to jail time... having a hit of one drug or a dime bag of another in the US can lead you to getting several months of jail time in a low to medium security penetentary. What this law did was prevent that... Getting caught with a drug in that country is similar to getting a ticket for driving over the speed limit in the US.

further more... the numbers Do lie.

presenting just a few sets of numbers (number of drug related deaths, number of drug related HIV infections) does not gauge its over all effectiveness. crime rates both petty and serious has gone up since 2001. gang activity has also increased over the years. and while neither of these can be directly connected to the legality over the usage of controlled substances they are not something you can just idly ignore when talking about it either.

The problem with this argument is that I've never seen a conclusive study on the drawbacks of cannabis that hasn't been rebutted by some other study. The same goes for the positive effects. In fact, the only thing that everyone seems to agree upon is that inhaling partially combusted, dried plant matter is bad for you. Even I will agree with this. The problem isn't the THC, it's smoke. Besides, the numbers I presented weren't meant to be conclusive, just an example of what releasing drug use from legislation can do for a country. Gang violence and civil unrest are connected to a lot more than mere drug use (as you pointed out), but the positive benefits are apparent. Much like alcohol, the focus shouldn't be on criminalizing it, but on addiction treatment.

Putting people in jail, barring them from getting loans and getting a rap sheet in general just because you were caught toking a joint is ridiculous. I don't disagree that not all the problems will be resolved if marijuana is decriminalized/legalized, I'm simply pointing out that it's current state as a criminal substance causes FAR more problems. There is no good reason for it's prohibition, it costs VASTS sums of money to enforce and in the end, it isn't harming anyone. I appreciate the rebuttal though. Constructive conversation will lead to awareness, not screaming aimless hate. Props.

Edit: Oh and as a side note, there is no such thing as "medical merijuana". It's all the same thing, they aren't cut with any chemicals, they are grown in dirt, with water, UV light and the same plant growth formulas (actually less) then farmed produce. They don't use pesticides if they are grown indoors and the bud is smoke untreated, picked form the plant. Scientists have created a lab made pure THC compound, but it is generally only given to those who have existing breathing issues and can't smoke the plant. Most "medical marijuana" is just the plant that the rest of us smoke. This argument is very flawed.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I've been railing about this for a while, so let me just break out the ol' argument machine.
Pot is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine.
Rates of violence would decrease if pot was government-regulated.
Revenue would increase.
The prison system would run much more efficiently and with much less of a backlog.
Mexican drug cartels would take a huge hit.
Etc. etc.

...

wrong... sorta...
the damage pot does is diffrent then that of alchole, tobacco, and caffine.

Alchol, tobacco, and caffine damage physical organs yet have a very mild psychoactive effect which disipates relitively quickly and has limited lasting effects. pot does little physical damage to the body but has a lasting noticable psychoactive effect which takes months to disipate completely.

in medical circles, damage or inhabition of the brain is more harmful then physical degredation or damage to organs. after all, you can get a liver replacement, you can't get a brain replacement.

Rates of violence would decrease if pot was government-regulated.

what?

not all killers are pot smokers. and being a pot smoker doesn't make you a killer to be honost.

if any thing evidence supports that crime rates would acctually increase with the legality of pot, although not in the sense of violent murders or drive bys and the such... but petty crimes would increase and more 'of the moment' crimes would occur as like alcohole, it decreases your inhabition to an extent.

Revenue would increase.

this is a stupid argument that i always see that doesn't make much sense...
all of a sudden with its legalization the pot trucks will drive over and dispence their hempy goodness at a 5% tax and the massive influx will increase revenue!
why is this dream so prevailent as an argument for pro-pot?

pot is not like cigerettes, and will never be like cigerettes... you will not see a massive influx of revenue with the legilization of pot as it is too much of a small time casual drug. it is arguable you'd even see a general increase of revenue in your life time from the legalization of pot simply because the institutions and distribution for it just don't exist.

the reason cigerettes produce so much revenue... They have been sold for hundreds of years. marketting, distrobution, and usage of them have been around since before they where taxed.

The prison system would run much more efficiently and with much less of a backlog.

...
what?
since when where all of the prisoners pot heads?

the prison system is backlogged and over populated because of crime... not pot.
when you have laws like the californian '3 strike' law then of course you're going to get over population because all of a sudden petty criminal are now being put into circulation in high security prisons... and well.. there are a lot of petty criminals out there.

Mexican drug cartels would take a huge hit.

wait what?

the main import of the drug cartels is crack and heroin, not pot.
Pot and Meth are the main local compitition because they can be easily home-made. sure you have some drug traffiking chains that work pot, but these are hardly the biggest threat from the mexican drug cartels... hell i doubt they'd even feel a hit.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Here's the problem with the 'the criminals get the money instead of the government' argument.

You can justify pretty much anything that way.

For example: Roman emperors amassed considerable wealth, popularity and prestige by killing people in huge public spectacles. That doesn't make murder right. It certainly doesn't mean that because a criminal who shoots someone and steals there wallet has made some cash we should have the police do a weekly shooting spree to fund the new I95 expansion.

Well, you absurd argument isn't just silly, but a weak analogy as well. Of course killing in public spectacles like they did didn't supplant the murderers. It added to it. And while you could argue that slightly more people will use marijuana if it were legal (And I can guarantee, the first like year the usage percentage would probably get pretty high "snicker"), it isn't the same as, say, forcing them to be smoked in public.

It is also not an argument of moving the money from the Criminals to the government. You also make it regulated, which allows it to be a lot safer. The problem is that making it illegal is NOT decreasing its usage rates all that effectively. It's like speed limits on highways.

 

[JamesBr]

I've been railing about this for a while, so let me just break out the ol' argument machine.
Pot is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine.
Rates of violence would decrease if pot was government-regulated.
Revenue would increase.
The prison system would run much more efficiently and with much less of a backlog.
Mexican drug cartels would take a huge hit.
Etc. etc.

...

wrong... sorta...
the damage pot does is diffrent then that of alchole, tobacco, and caffine.

Alchol, tobacco, and caffine damage physical organs yet have a very mild psychoactive effect which disipates relitively quickly and has limited lasting effects. pot does little physical damage to the body but has a lasting noticable psychoactive effect which takes months to disipate completely.

etc...

Show me a conclusive study that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that marijuana has long term psychoactive effects that takes months to dissipate. I call bullshit on this. I've been pot smoking for years and have not suffered any long term effects from quitting for over a month (this month and the last in fact) other than the occasional craving that is no worse then not wanting to eat anything in your fridge because you REALLY want pizza. Cocaine use gives you severe, teeth-grinding cravings after a weekend of use (if you do enough of it) that can last for weeks. I've never experienced anything remotely close to what your describing.

Edit: You're also clearly unaware that marijuana is the #1 drug in the world. It makes more money then all the other drugs COMBINED and is only seconded by cocaine which far less annually than weed.

 

[DigitalSushi]

I never once said (in either post) that we should ban marijuana or other things that are addictive. I merely stated the fact that they are addictive to some extent.

Proof. [http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth9.shtml]

A recent study made in the UK rates Cannabis as 19 percent addictive, its peer reviewed so you'll need to be part of the Scientific community to get your hands on the full report, as such your link is currently out of date.

http://www.talktofrank.com/drugs.aspx?id=172

 

[JamesBr]

Well despite maruijuana not being so bad for your health, there not gunna legalise it anytime soon so you should deal with it and stop whining like the entire state is retarded or something.

Im not saying I wouldnt vote to legalise it but the punishments for using/doing are so minor its really not something to get bitchy about. "Oh wah, I had to pay a fine of 100 bucks or got put in jail for a month, I dont even care for the fact that if alcohol drinkers or tobacco smokers were using there stuff as excessively as me they would be dead".

But the punishments are NOT minor, that's the problem. If you get caught possessing marijuana and are tried guilty for possession, you can't even get a student loan. Not to mention the jail time. The US doesn't give you a slap on the wrist. It fucks your life. Read up on the penalties before throwing around such obviously ill-informed statements.

 

[JamesBr]

Edit: double post, sorry.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Edit: Oh and as a side note, there is no such thing as "medical merijuana". It's all the same thing, they aren't cut with any chemicals, they are grown in dirt, with water, UV light and the same plant growth formulas (actually less) then farmed produce. They don't use pesticides if they are grown indoors and the bud is smoke untreated, picked form the plant. Scientists have created a lab made pure THC compound, but it is generally only given to those who have existing breathing issues and can't smoke the plant. Most "medical marijuana" is just the plant that the rest of us smoke. This argument is very flawed.

when you see studies about Medical Marijuana which point out the positives they are using â-Caryophyllene (CB2) Cannabinol (CBN) or Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). these case studies are using Marijuana that is cut to only include these base compounds or these base compounds and a few others... or is cut with compounds (such as CBN inhibitors) which restrict/remove all other Cannabinoids... this allows them for a more direct and scientific study of specific compounds

Cannibus, the plant, contains over 300 individual compounds, over 60 of which are cannabinoids (of which only about half are identified/understood).

the negative effects i'm speaking about arn't about how THC or some other stupid effect, i'm talking about a real to life physical and scientific effect. Certain Cannabinoids (Cannabinol (CBN) is one of them albiet weaker) act as an potent agonist. an Argonist binds itself to a receptor and triggers the release of chemical compounds. however some studies have shown that the binding of these receptors and of some of the cannabnoids acctually damage the receptor in the processes.

much like the binding of the CO molicule to the hemoglobin in blood, these receptors just don't want to let go of the agonist compound.

 

[Agayek]

Yeah, and it's apathy, it's "Why should we bother, they both look like they suck" Well guess what? one of them is going to run your country, whether you like it or not. This isn't American idle, there is no wild card round where other candidates are brought in last second. ONe of these two dicks are going to run your country. You know they're dicks, they know they're dicks. But fucking choose anyways

Yea, one of them will run the country, but they're both equally bad. There's no point in voting when both options are equally terrible.

 

[JamesBr]

Edit: Oh and as a side note, there is no such thing as "medical merijuana". It's all the same thing, they aren't cut with any chemicals, they are grown in dirt, with water, UV light and the same plant growth formulas (actually less) then farmed produce. They don't use pesticides if they are grown indoors and the bud is smoke untreated, picked form the plant. Scientists have created a lab made pure THC compound, but it is generally only given to those who have existing breathing issues and can't smoke the plant. Most "medical marijuana" is just the plant that the rest of us smoke. This argument is very flawed.

when you see studies about Medical Marijuana which point out the positives they are using â-Caryophyllene (CB2) Cannabinol (CBN) or Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). these case studies are using Marijuana that is cut to only include these base compounds or these base compounds and a few others... or is cut with compounds (such as CBN inhibitors) which restrict/remove all other Cannabinoids... this allows them for a more direct and scientific study of specific compounds

Cannibus, the plant, contains over 300 individual compounds, over 60 of which are cannabinoids (of which only about half are identified/understood).

the negative effects i'm speaking about arn't about how THC or some other stupid effect, i'm talking about a real to life physical and scientific effect. Certain Cannabinoids (Cannabinol (CBN) is one of them albiet weaker) act as an potent agonist. an Argonist binds itself to a receptor and triggers the release of chemical compounds. however some studies have shown that the binding of these receptors and of some of the cannabnoids acctually damage the receptor in the processes.

much like the binding of the CO molicule to the hemoglobin in blood, these receptors just don't want to let go of the agonist compound.

But how does this justify it's current state as a criminal substance? Cigarettes are far worse for you and are better documented. The prison systems are backlogged with people who were arrested for possession of marijuana (as I said earlier, a sixth of the inmates in the US in 2007 were for pot possession) and getting convicted for possession will ruin your life. Negative drawback aside, there's no argument that justifies it's current state as a criminal substance and the penalties one suffers if one is caught.

Who cares if there are long term drawbacks to smoking pot? The are long term drawbacks to eating too many Big Macs too, you don't see anyone prohibiting McDonald's. You can't make a substantial argument based on the potential drawbacks to a substance when you consider the amount of lethal and damaging stuff you can already buy legally. Pot is no worse and often better than many of these things. And the medicinal effects ARE there, unlike alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods. Find me a over-the-counter pharmaseutical that doesn't have a laundry list of side-effects. Hell, you make meth with cough syrup. Why can't I legally smoke a joint within the privacy of my own home?

 

[Pyro Paul]

I've been railing about this for a while, so let me just break out the ol' argument machine.
Pot is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine.
Rates of violence would decrease if pot was government-regulated.
Revenue would increase.
The prison system would run much more efficiently and with much less of a backlog.
Mexican drug cartels would take a huge hit.
Etc. etc.

...

wrong... sorta...
the damage pot does is diffrent then that of alchole, tobacco, and caffine.

Alchol, tobacco, and caffine damage physical organs yet have a very mild psychoactive effect which disipates relitively quickly and has limited lasting effects. pot does little physical damage to the body but has a lasting noticable psychoactive effect which takes months to disipate completely.

etc...

Show me a conclusive study that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that marijuana has long term psychoactive effects that takes months to dissipate. I call bullshit on this. I've been pot smoking for years and have not suffered any long term effects from quitting for over a month (this month and the last in fact) other than the occasional craving that is no worse then not wanting to eat anything in your fridge because you REALLY want pizza. Cocaine use gives you severe, teeth-grinding cravings after a weekend of use (if you do enough of it) that can last for weeks. I've never experienced anything remotely close to what your describing.

Edit: You're also clearly unaware that marijuana is the #1 drug in the world. It makes more money then all the other drugs COMBINED and is only seconded by cocaine which far less annually than weed.

Gruber AJ, Pope HG, Hudson JI, Yurgelun-Todd D. Attributes of long-term heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Med 33(8):1415?1422, 2003.

see:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=184983

they are not seriously debilitating effects
but they range from depression, mood shifts, lack of drive, lowered empathy, lowered/difficulty to feel satisfied, lowered capability to feel accomplished, etc.

again, it damages diffrently.

and in medical science... damage to the brain is more serious then damage to any other organ in the body.

at length, the pscyhoactive effects of liquor and alchol disipate completely 2-3 days after usage. caffine and niccotine usually cycle through you're body in hours.

noticable negative side effects in preception and short term memory last up to 2 weeks and prolonged side effects including effects on mood, empathy, and accomplishment can be still felt several months after the fact. true these effects are no where near the severity of other illegal controlled substances such as cocain or heroin, but they do exist.


marijuana isn't a very lucritive drug of choice simply because to turn a profit on it you Have to sell large quantities of it. that is the reason quantity wise it is one of the most sold compounds on the drug market. of the 'cartels' which are little more then just drug running gangs now adays, focus on more lucritive drugs is their primary focus transporting large quantities of Cocain, Heroin, coca, and opiums for refinement/distrobution.

to the DEA, a Key of pot is nothing... you don't really run deals or try and track supply lines off of just that. a key of coke is a Lot. you try and roll that guy as fast as you can and work your way up the tree.

i've heard it even said before of DEA officals 'leave pot to the police'
although i know with the recent documentaries and reality shows, they show more of a focus on trying to shut down the 'pot' trade, i think that is more for show.

 

[Ickorus]

So basically it fell through because all the people that wanted the proposition to go through were too stoned to go vote that day.

Serious face: It's stupid really, that drug is one of the least harmful illegal drugs I know of and as far as legitimate science is aware it's much less harmful to the user than smoking tobacco and less harmful to the user and those around the user than alcohol.