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

[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.

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?

well that is a point. the severity of the legal consquences for having pot is very dispropotionate for its acctual effect.

its legality as a controlled susbstence is more to the fact that a healthy portion of pot is 'largely unknown' and our fears, although orginally irrational, do have a reasonable precidence at the moment. and personally i would keep it illegal, there are too many question marks and too many concerns to have this be a free substance.

but at the same time i wouldn't classify pot as Schedule I drug.
i would support decreasing the legal penelties making it more atkin to public drunkeness.

 

[JamesBr]

Your right, of course. This is all true. A kilo of weed takes up a lot of space, is harder to transport and the average user will go through it far slower then someone with a kilo of coke (for example). The long term effects though seem to be largely correlation and not causation.

Although these studies do show that heavy smokers make less money and have less achievements, one cannot help but wonder if they smoke heavily because of this and not the other way around. It's still not a very strong argument when you consider that you'll most likely find the similar statistics in alcohol and other drug abuse. Why then, is it criminal to own/purchase/sell? Anything can be abused to the point of life altering effect. I've met more then my fair share of burn-outs and have indeed had to quit before because of similar symptoms myself when usage was getting too heavy. Then again the binge-drinking rates in college students is astonishingly high and they tend to clean up their act when they progress with school/graduate. Those that don't are most likely alcoholics and will suffer with it until they clean up, if they ever do. And yet alcohol is legal to anyone over the age of 21 in the US (19 in Canada and most countries, sometimes younger depending on where you are).

I still haven't heard a reasonable argument as to why it's illegal. Any argument made can easily be applied to many other substances one can already acquire at no penalty and at nearly any age. And yet nothing happens to these substances. Cops hate dealing with pot smokers and dealers because they have better things to do. Pot smokers don't go out and commit crimes and all the crimes surrounding pot are BECAUSE it's contraband. The heavier the legislation, the higher the black market price. The more it's worth and the harder it is to get, the greater to violence associated with it. From a user standpoint, we're getting the shaft for no good reason while the rest of the country pours tons of money into enforcing legislation on something that isn't harming anyone directly any more than anything else.

 

[Seydaman]

I don't really care. What's gonna happen, all the addicts are going to whine about not getting their fix? "Get the government out of my marijuana, I deserve the right to smoke it." Oh, please, even if they do care about those rights, it's rarely the principle that they are arguing for; they just want to get high. Besides, those who really want it will find a way to get it anyway. The laws in place only keep it from getting ridiculously out of hand.

Uhm, you realize you sound like a retard?
Marijuana isn't addictive...at all....someone just failed hardcore.
Edit: You should go watch the movie The Union, should clear this up for you.

Wow, I guess you're right - I'm a total retard. I forgot that there was no such thing as a "stoner".

But honestly, you realize that YOU sound like a retard? You're actually going to tell me that marijuana is not addictive at all? Even things like television, video games, sex, and food can be addictive. In fact, literally everything can be addictive if you have it enough times.

Okay bro

Stoner: someone who smokes weed often. smoking often =/= addicted.addiction is a dependency of something,be it psychological or chemical.

seydaman,you are a fool.no,no weed is not addictive.yes those things are addictive,but you don't see people going through fucking withdrawal every time they don't eat a cheese burger,do you?no,because it's a DIFFERENT KIND OF ADDICTION!those addictions are psychological,or they're just habits people just worked into and didn't work out of!it's not the weed,it's the PEOPLE using the weed,just like it's not a burger but the person eating the burger,or playing the game,or having sex!the type of addiction that comes with weed is PSYCHOLOGICAL,not CHEMICAL.

Excuse me could you please clarify the reason that I am a fool?

 

[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?

well that is a point. the severity of the legal consquences for having pot is very dispropotionate for its acctual effect.

its legality as a controlled susbstence is more to the fact that a healthy portion of pot is 'largely unknown' and our fears, although orginally irrational, do have a reasonable precidence at the moment. and personally i would keep it illegal, there are too many question marks and too many concerns to have this be a free substance.

but at the same time i wouldn't classify pot as Schedule I drug.
i would support decreasing the legal penelties making it more atkin to public drunkeness.

This is essentially what I'm trying to get across. I don't deny that there are bad things about smoking weed. The drug still needs a lot of research (it is, after all, a perception altering substance) and anyone who thinks inhaling improperly combusted plant matter is not bad for you needs to crawl out from under their rock. But the penalties levied upon those who are caught with it far outweigh the drugs effects. Someone hopped up on PCP will take bullets without slowing down and can become hyper aggressive while suffering intense hallucinations. Pot smokers generally want to chill out and nosh on a bag of chips.

Getting into trouble while out on the town while under the influence of marijuana should basically be filed under "public intoxication", not under the same label as someone in a speed-fueled rage (which isn't pretty, let me tell you). It all seems rather disproportionate. I guess that's all I'm getting at. The rebuttals have been enlightening though, it's hard to keep track of a lot of the research done in this field. Thanks for making my first posts here at The Escapist fun and interesting!

 

[Rensenhito]

SNIP

Yikes. Well, seeing as how the sole reason why I presented those points was that I knew they were true, I guess I have no choice but to refute your refuting of my arguments.
(Thanks, JamesBr, for writing the first part of this for me)
1. The reason why pot regulation would decrease rates of violence is thus: have you ever heard of a violent pot smoker? Let me answer that for you. No. No you have not. I'm gonna assume from your spelling and grammar that you're younger than me. From that assumption, I can extrapolate that you've never smoked pot, and so you have no idea what it's like to be high. Let me put this in perspective: when you're high, you don't want to do anything. Especially not anything illegal. That's partly because of the paranoia that comes with being high, and partly because you just don't want to do anything active.
2. Have you looked up the hard facts on this? Because marijuana is the #1 cash crop in California, as well as many other states in the U.S. The reason why the government isn't seeing any of that money is because it's not being taxed. Ergo, if they were to tax it, naturally, they would see an increase in revenue.
3. It's not that all prisoners are pot heads. It's that a good number of people have been arrested for possession of marijuana. By making possession legal, we can stop prosecuting them for what are, even now, victimless crimes.
4. Obviously, one of us doesn't know his statistics. Could be me, could be you, but what I've read is that several cartels get around 50% of their cash from selling marijuana in America.

 

[Legion IV]

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

Did you really just link to one of those stupid anti-drug campaign websites for a study? Don't you think they may be a little biased?

THats a double edged sword. I've NEVER met a non baised weed user EVER.

 

[bad rider]

All the adverts that were against the prop were bullshit, they said people could come to work high and then couldn't be prosecuted unless an accident happened. Also said people could drive high, utter bullshit. Basically someone didn't want it to pass, seeing it was likely to spread lies to spread their agenda. All this proves is propaganda and ignorance will win every time.

 

[DigitalSushi]

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

Did you really just link to one of those stupid anti-drug campaign websites for a study? Don't you think they may be a little biased?

Yeah I did, my point still stands, Cannabis is addictive, any drug is addictive in enough quantities.

Want to re read what I said?, I highlighted an item of interest.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

"As ass-backwards as ever" eh? That vote was incredibly close - I wouldn't pass sentence on all of California for that.

Anyways, it's not like you can stop the people who want to smoke marijuana. Smokers gonna smoke. The guys who just wanted revenue for the state to be generated (this is the camp I fall into when it comes to legalisation of marijuana), sorry fellas.

 

[Taxicab Samurai]

[
Use your head fool, we're obviously talking about drugs such as heroin.

Yeah, but when you say drug as a general term, medical drugs are included.
Also what about all those legal drugs we've had for years?
Alcohol, tobacco?
A durr hurr makes those illegal too?

 

[JamesBr]

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

Did you really just link to one of those stupid anti-drug campaign websites for a study? Don't you think they may be a little biased?

Yeah I did, my point still stands, Cannabis is addictive, any drug is addictive in enough quantities.

Want to re read what I said?, I highlighted an item of interest.

No, you're point doesn't stand. Cannabis is not physically addictive, it's habit forming. What you're talking about falls under the same category as an eating disorder. Sure, it might still be an addiction (under a loose definition), but it's a VERY different kind of addiction, the same kind that can be said of being addicted to any other non-addictive substance. As a result, you're argument is inherently flawed. ANYTHING is addictive in the right quantities and with the right mindset. People get hooked on snorting compressed air canisters, should we make them illegal? How about gasoline? I hear soaking a paper bag in that and inhaling gets your pretty messed up. People get hooked on it and can die. Where do you draw the line?

 

[JamesBr]

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

Did you really just link to one of those stupid anti-drug campaign websites for a study? Don't you think they may be a little biased?

Yeah I did, my point still stands, Cannabis is addictive, any drug is addictive in enough quantities.

Want to re read what I said?, I highlighted an item of interest.

Weed is addictive the same way cig's are addictive, (But to nowhere near the same level.) In that it's habitual and psychological. Not chemical. THC doesn't for any kind of chemical addiction. I've heard people tell me they use it to get to sleep. And after a while they feel they need it to get to sleep at all. Also the motion of rolling and smoking can be habit forming.

It's still not chemically addictive though. So in other words. It's down to willpower. If you're the type of person who drinks 30 cups of coffee a day because they're used to it, then you'll likely get addicted to it.

But if you want to stop all you need to do is put the spliff down and step away. Calling it an addiction isn't really fair.

Actually, nicotine is very physically addictive, you're contradicting yourself. Weed is not physically addictive, it's habit forming. The difference is very important.

 

[katsumoto03]

I'd understand all of this fuss if this was like, cocaine or something, but this is just marijuana for God's sake!

 

[DigitalSushi]

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

Did you really just link to one of those stupid anti-drug campaign websites for a study? Don't you think they may be a little biased?

Yeah I did, my point still stands, Cannabis is addictive, any drug is addictive in enough quantities.

Want to re read what I said?, I highlighted an item of interest.

Weed is addictive the same way cig's are addictive, (But to nowhere near the same level.) In that it's habitual and psychological. Not chemical. THC doesn't for any kind of chemical addiction. I've heard people tell me they use it to get to sleep. And after a while they feel they need it to get to sleep at all. Also the motion of rolling and smoking can be habit forming.

It's still not chemically addictive though. So in other words. It's down to willpower. If you're the type of person who drinks 30 cups of coffee a day because they're used to it, then you'll likely get addicted to it.

But if you want to stop all you need to do is put the spliff down and step away. Calling it an addiction isn't really fair.

Actually, nicotine is very physically addictive, you're contradicting yourself. Weed is not physically addictive, it's habit forming. The difference is very important.

Thats what the new guidelines of drug use actually take into consideration, the way it affects you in everyday life, so yeah cannabis is addictive.

Please don't argue the semantics of a discussion, saying a person's arguments is flawed because of the "definition of addiction" isn't quite up to scratch is poor mate.

Hopefully when the peer reviewed papers get published I can stop my inbox getting spammed.

 

[JamesBr]

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

Did you really just link to one of those stupid anti-drug campaign websites for a study? Don't you think they may be a little biased?

Yeah I did, my point still stands, Cannabis is addictive, any drug is addictive in enough quantities.

Want to re read what I said?, I highlighted an item of interest.

Weed is addictive the same way cig's are addictive, (But to nowhere near the same level.) In that it's habitual and psychological. Not chemical. THC doesn't for any kind of chemical addiction. I've heard people tell me they use it to get to sleep. And after a while they feel they need it to get to sleep at all. Also the motion of rolling and smoking can be habit forming.

It's still not chemically addictive though. So in other words. It's down to willpower. If you're the type of person who drinks 30 cups of coffee a day because they're used to it, then you'll likely get addicted to it.

But if you want to stop all you need to do is put the spliff down and step away. Calling it an addiction isn't really fair.

Actually, nicotine is very physically addictive, you're contradicting yourself. Weed is not physically addictive, it's habit forming. The difference is very important.

Thats what the new guidelines of drug use actually take into consideration, the way it affects you in everyday life, so yeah cannabis is addictive.

Please don't argue the semantics of a discussion, saying a person's arguments is flawed because of the "definition of addiction" isn't quite up to scratch is poor mate.

Hopefully when the peer reviewed papers get published I can stop my inbox getting spammed.

Sorry if I came off strong, but I wasn't pointing out your argument was flawed, I must have misunderstood. Actually, I agree with your argument, it is down to willpower. You're right, 100%. Your statement also meshes well with what I've been saying. I was merely pointing out that it's not addictive in the same way cigs are, they're addictive in a very different way. I wasn't trying to contradict you. My apologizes.