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

[Gaz6231]

Money doesn't somehow stop something being wrong or dangerous

It does, however, let you spend decades having people believe that something is wrong or dangerous to destroy your business competition. Google 'William Randolph Hearst' to find out why marijuana is 'wrong and dangerous'.

 

[zombays]

You should have voted.

 

[Ryokai]

OH GOD THE GOVERNMENT STOPPED US FROM KILLING OUR BRAINS.

Yes, yes, I know, alcohol is just as bad if not worse, but we CAN ban marijuana, we can't ban booze (didn't work out so well last time).

 

[Jonabob87]

marijuana not addictive? we all know that's just a damn lie. anyone who says "_____ isn't addictive" is in the deepest sort of denial. we can call say "alcohol isn't addictive" but does that make it true? hell no.

I can say that pasta is not addictive, but does that make it true?
[EDIT: Man, ninja-d by the above post. Disregard the following if you want, they gave some good links.]
Cannabis does not form any physical dependencies. Any addiction is on the part of the user. It can make you feel good, and you can say it is addicting because you want more, but it is not physically difficult to stop using it (I should know), meaning if someone is "addicted" to it, they probably have some problems for which they turn to cannabis for relief, or solace, or whatever you want to call it.

The other guy we hung around with spent 2 years of his life sitting in his home stoned, then going to work stoned, then coming home and staying stoned. (His work is manual). Sure cannabis isn't dangerous, sure.

That sounds like that's a problem with that guy being dangerous and irresponsible on his own. If you can tell me that he wasn't making poor decisions such as those prior to using cannabis, I'll retract that statement. Use cannabis properly and at the right time, such as times where you might choose to get drunk instead of high.

I can tell you that the guy is probably among the most responsible people I know. He's off it now, but let me say that addiction isn't solely a physical thing. Psychological addiction is just as dangerous BECAUSE it doesn't present itself physically. Coming off something that you are addicted to in your head can still be as jarring and as damaging an experience as with physical addiction.

This isn't me saying "Cannabis isn't addictive" this is me presenting another side of that argument, I have seen and/or read studies that do find cannabis to have addictive qualities. Aside from this even if we do classify cannabis as not being addictive, the drugs that are imported in are more often than not impure, or entirely different to what you think you're getting. Don't say that legalising cannabis will put an end to this because like I say; it will just make illegally sold drugs cheaper.

I think the real danger behind cannabis usage (and all drug usage for that matter) is that so much mythos and bull has risen up around it. When the guy I mentioned was using he used to tell me he heard that cannabis is good for your lungs, that it "clears them out". Obviously something his dealer had told him (or some other lunatic). I've had people try and convince me that it wakes you up, it makes you clear headed, it makes you think quicker, blah blah blah. That it's in no way addictive or "more-ish". All nonsense.

So people don't seem to see a problem with driving while high a lot of the time. or operating heavy machine (i.e. my friend) or doing whatever menial tasks could become dangerous if forgotten about (grilling something?) They think they're untouchable because it starts when you're young and young people are stupid.

This is without even going in to how long it's in your system and can effect your day to day behavior weeks after you've smoked/eaten it. Or the psychological effects that it has on the minds of people who use it, how it affects short term memory etc.

 

[BroJing]

Yes, yes hemp vs big timber all very sad. (I didn't google it, took a guess at what you're getting at)

However, if the Big Tobacco trials during the 90s showed us anything large pressure groups can be brought down by public pressure if people are enthusiastic enough. No Tobacco is not illegal but as can be seen from some of the posters people have posted from the early 1900s their influence and freedom to do crazy-ass things has been severely stamped on.

My point was more that it's an invalid argument no matter what you apply it to. My own views on Marijuana legalization are mixed (I smoked weed in my teenage years quite sparingly, maybe one spliff every few months) but I hate to see people use that argument.

 

[Gaz6231]

Yes, yes, I know, alcohol is just as bad if not worse, but we CAN ban marijuana, we can't ban booze (didn't work out so well last time).

Wait, what?

Maybe that sentence makes sense to you, but what that says to me is 'it should be illegal because it's illegal and worse legal things can't be made illegal'. Do you see the logical fallacy there?

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Okay ,think of it this way, when your country votes for a president, only HALF the people legal to vote actually do. lets say only half the voted on this as well. Suddenly you're not just one person anymore are you?

Only half the Americans that can vote do, then they ***** about the president. Get off your lazy ass and vote, or shut the fuck up about your apathetic decision to not make a difference

I'd just like yo take this opportunity to point out that the majority of people who don't vote do so for the very reason mentioned in that South Park episode. The choice is usually between a douche and a turd sandwich. There's really not a whole hell of a lot of difference.

On the topic of the Prop 19 though, I'm almost glad that it didn't pass. It was a very poorly thought out bill. There will almost certainly be another one, and it's got a good chance to be significantly better than 19.

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

 

[JamesBr]

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.

 

[ZenMonkey47]

The public clearly don't want it legalized so there's no point complaining about how the government has it wrong.

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. It wasn't a landslide victory. According to the numbers, slightly less than half want it legalized, slightly more than half didn't. Sounds like most people are split on the decision despite there being a victor.

 

[Ranooth]

Ok well done, from your data it looks like a miracle cure for the whole world but that doesn't change the fact thats it illegal.

It's illegal because it's a 'miracle cure'. [http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/]

Some people (and i only hope its a handful) well debate until the comes come home that cannibilsm and murder are ok, they may even present evidenence

I really, seriously hope you're trolling. Because comparing smoking a plant to eating someone is just fucking retarded and you know it.

Hey look its one of those links i was on about, let me just check . . . nope weed is still illegal.

I'm sure you won't mind if I take that as 'I have no rational response to the evidence presented'.

Hey its up to you to think what you want on what i'm saying, from the look of your past posts it just seems you that you can't understand other peoples views and thoughts and have to shout at everyone who thinks differently from you. I've seen millions of this studies and heard every single argument for legalization from my flatmates. I frankly don't care what that you smoke it, just accept that for now its illegal and stop whining about "the man", if you guys put half of the energy you spend arguing about it on forums and in these studies then you could probably get a good campaign for it.

 

[dickseverywhere]

ugh this sucks, any cali resident who didn't get out and vote yes needs a kick in the nuts. this could have influence the rest of the world to sort out their failed drug policies.
still there are i think two more propositions currently on the way to legalise, hopefully better written ones too.

Drugs should be illegal everywhere, altogether, no matter what kind it is.

And this comes from a guy living in the Netherlands, where the dumbasses who actually get legal weed and such waste their time on the crap.

most drugs *are* illegal, have you noticed it doesn't do a damn thing to stop people taking them? why not make them safer and cheaper and have the profits go to the government so the can them be spent solving any problems caused or just generally to benefit the rest country?

 

[Gaz6231]

from the look of your past posts it just seems you that you can't understand other peoples views and thoughts and have to shout at everyone who thinks differently from you.

Far be it from me to point out the obvious but you can't really shout in text form. Besides, shouting is what people do when their opinions are uninformed and irrational because it's the only way people will listen to what they're saying, so I don't feel the need for it. As for thinking differently, ignoring the facts is the opposite of thinking.

Just accept that for now its illegal and stop whining about "the man"

A potent combination of ill logic and stereotype. Accepting that it's illegal would be completely counter-productive to the effort of getting it legalised.
And nobody has used the phrase 'the man' since the 70's, not everyone who smokes weed lives in a van and wears tie-dye.

Also;

TRUTH

This man speaks it.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

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.

people should pay attention to what this person says. it really does contain mostly objective, empirical facts.

 

[Ranooth]

from the look of your past posts it just seems you that you can't understand other peoples views and thoughts and have to shout at everyone who thinks differently from you.

Far be it from me to point out the obvious but you can't really shout in text form. Besides, shouting is what people do when their opinions are uninformed and irrational because it's the only way people will listen to what they're saying, so I don't feel the need for it. As for thinking differently, ignoring the facts is the opposite of thinking.

Just accept that for now its illegal and stop whining about "the man"

A potent combination of ill logic and stereotype. Accepting that it's illegal would be completely counter-productive to the effort of getting it legalised.
And nobody has used the phrase 'the man' since the 70's, not everyone who smokes weed lives in a van and wears tie-dye.

First of all i was guessing that you would be educated enough to understand that the term shout was a metaphor, the mental image im getting of you from your posts is some angry whining guy who is just shouting at people because they share a different view to you.
And i am in no way ignoring any facts, im just sick and tired you people link you cramming down peoples throats these links to studies by random people and coming up with reasons why pot is good. Its still illegal so like i've said many times before just bloody deal with it and stop with this moaning, it really doesn't put you in a good light.

At the end of the day your gunna ***** and moan and state "facts" until i say "OMG! I WAS WRONG! WEED IS THE BEST THING EVER AND ALL THE GOVERMENTS ARE RETARDS!" (although i may agree with you on the government bit), so im just gunna leave you be to whine while i actually go do something productive with my day.

Have a nice life

 

[Gaz6231]

VAGUE ATTEMPT TO CLAIM SUPERIORITY

I love that you put the word facts in quotation marks, pretty much sums up the whole anti-pot argument.
You go be productive if it helps you get over the fact that your entire 'argument' is based on stereotype and personal attack. I'll be here giving informed, unbiased opinions.

im just sick and tired you people

 

[Spy_Guy]

-snip-

Well first off, I have absolutely no vested interest in that poll. I'm not from California, or even America and I don't actually smoke pot, never even so much as tried it.

The fact is, telling 46% of the population to take their opinion and shove it up their arse when the object in question is allowing and legalizing an optional use of a substance (if you can even call it that, considering it's just a bloody plant, not a derived chemical or something) is simply stupid. Those 53% could easily never use marijuana and more to the point, the legalization doesn't necessarily mean you can smoke pot whenever you want, wherever you want, with no ties.

We already have laws for regulation of both alcohol and cigarettes worldwide and same could (and obviously would and eventually will, it's merely a matter of time) be applied to marijuana. F ex. no smoking in public (possibly allowed in certain bars or sth), no operating of heavy machinery while under the influence etc.

Imagine the same law was proposed for gaming. If 60% of the country doesn't play video games and are technophobes along with people honestly believing it actively encourages/instigates violence (you know, the same shit being pushed against marijuana and hell, whatever that 'intelligent' majority doesn't find personally appealing), should gaming be banned and outlawed simply because 40% is technically a minority?

The problem's that the system simply is not well equipped to deal with such issues. If you think a barely smaller minority is a non-issue, then fair enough, but I just can't share such a view on most subjects such as this.

I can understand the "optional" argument, and yes 46% isn't a great minority. However, since this is a simple yes/no poll, you can either
1. Have 46% of the population shove their opinion up their arse
2. Have 53% of the population shove their opinion up their arse

The gaming example is a good one, I must say, and I would personally be strongly dissatisfied with that result, however, if such a law were to be passed, then I'd probably do everything in my might to fight it, but I would have to accept the results.
That's democracy.

 

[Ranooth]

VAGUE ATTEMPT TO CLAIM SUPERIORITY

I just cant be assed to talk to you anymore, this isn't a game with people that win.

im just sick and tired you people

Ok now that actually made me laugh quite a bit

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Is that the one for developing erectile dysfunction?

 

[Vrach]

I can understand the "optional" argument, and yes 46% isn't a great minority. However, since this is a simple yes/no poll, you can either
1. Have 46% of the population shove their opinion up their arse
2. Have 53% of the population shove their opinion up their arse

The gaming example is a good one, I must say, and I would personally be strongly dissatisfied with that result, however, if such a law were to be passed, then I'd probably do everything in my might to fight it, but I would have to accept the results.
That's democracy.

I know it is - just explaining, I think it's where the system fails, is ill equipped to deal with such issues and most realistically to the point - should not be used in this situation.

The thing with shoving it up their arse is that the side voting no isn't really winning anything. No one is forcing them to smoke marijuana - but they are forcing everyone else not to (or well, to have it punishable by law). It's not a law about allowing marijuana to be smoked in public places, thus affecting everyone else, it's a law about allowing it for personal use - and the other side, considering their number is only minutely greater, should not be able to restrict that for them.

 

[Rensenhito]

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.