As I recall (from the History channel's series on the history of drugs) Marijuana was primarily made illegal in the US because it was being brought up through mexico, and since the US is prone to going apeshit whenever mexicans are involved, it was banned in an attempt to drive out illegal aliens. You can see how well that worked out.
Why is marijuana illegal?
- Thread starter alik44
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's political mostly. During the Mexican revolution, fighting spilled out over the U.S. border. Criminals and refugees who crossed the border brought cannabis with them. State governments tried illegalizing the drug as an excuse to deport immigrants back to Mexico, but after awhile the market for cannabis grew.
Pot was later the drug of choice for hippies in the sixties and seventies. Politicians hated hippies, so pot restrictions were enforced to piss them off. South Park summed up this side of the argument pretty nicely.
Personally, I think cannabis should be legal for private use and nothing more. I'm fine with it as long as it isn't used out in public.
Pot was later the drug of choice for hippies in the sixties and seventies. Politicians hated hippies, so pot restrictions were enforced to piss them off. South Park summed up this side of the argument pretty nicely.
Personally, I think cannabis should be legal for private use and nothing more. I'm fine with it as long as it isn't used out in public.
Well way back when, canibus, the more official term for the pot plant, was set to eclipse the lumber industry as a primary building material and paper making. So the lumber trust convinced politicions to make it illegal while creating a ton of propaganda. There was also a court case, where a boy murbered his parents with an axe and people said the smoking weed made him do it. As soon as it was illegalized, a huge stigma started to grow. Now everyone thinks it melts your brain and is a sin and all that.
You only get ash if you dont know what youre doing. Beside, a bong or bubbler completely gets rid of that problem.Kopikatsu said:
Carl Sagan loved the weed, all arguements are invalid.
Seriously, I am a user, but since I live in the Netherlands that's actually pretty normal, especially in the "geek" scene here. Never had a problem in my life, to be honest. I know it's anecdotal, but considdering the "evidence" presented by both sides seems shady at best and are outright lies at worst, it's all we got.
Now, my mates and I, we like to think of ourselves as pretty smart fella's, so obviously nobody's gonna drive his car after smoking a couple of greens, nor smoke the night before work.
Considdering that the most harmfull product in a joint is the tobacco, the weird war on weed from our new right-wing goverment seems kind of insane, and thankfully the mayors and provinces do everything in their power to combat the madness and keep the Netherland's green!
Also, ever saw Flash Gordon stoned? It. Will. Destroy. You.
Seriously, I am a user, but since I live in the Netherlands that's actually pretty normal, especially in the "geek" scene here. Never had a problem in my life, to be honest. I know it's anecdotal, but considdering the "evidence" presented by both sides seems shady at best and are outright lies at worst, it's all we got.
Now, my mates and I, we like to think of ourselves as pretty smart fella's, so obviously nobody's gonna drive his car after smoking a couple of greens, nor smoke the night before work.
Considdering that the most harmfull product in a joint is the tobacco, the weird war on weed from our new right-wing goverment seems kind of insane, and thankfully the mayors and provinces do everything in their power to combat the madness and keep the Netherland's green!
Also, ever saw Flash Gordon stoned? It. Will. Destroy. You.
Care to eliberate a bit? Im kind of seeing what you're saying, though. People need to argue to have it made so stoners arent criminalized, thrown in jail, etc. That's what you're getting at right?Uszi said:
Well I think it should be made legal all together, not just acceptable. Regulate it the same as alcohol and tabaco, and we'll all be cool.
Also here in California anything under an ounce (which is a lot) is the same punishment as a like a traffic ticket.
Marijauna has never been directly linked to lung cancer. No one has been able to adequately prove it yet. http://www.dailystrength.org/health_blogs/dr-orrange/article/is-smoking-pot-really-bad-for-youDevil said:
Regardless, the obviously smoke is bad for people. By that logic, should we make fireplaces, campfires, and incense illegal? Because THC does not do anything other than get those ten percent of people addicted, and in terms of withdrawals from things you can be addicted to, it's not anywhere as severe as other drugs, like nicotine and alcohol. Hell, having withdrawals from internet porn is worse.
In my experience, a stoned person drives way more carefully than an everyday driver. The amount of paranoia and total concentration you put into driving negates that. I know that's an extremely poor counterargument, but hey, it's true.Drizzitdude said:
Regardless, obviously laws would be put in place prohibiting you from driving while high.
Actually, it enhances that creative and artistic parts of your brain. I'm no scientist, but wouldn't that be considered making you smarter? I can't draw worth shit, but while under the influence in a safe environment at my own home, I made some pretty amazing pieces of art.Harlief said:
So the reason now goes back to people are drinking because they like the taste? I'm sorry, I really don't think that holds up.
Like, at all. Hell, I learned to like the taste of weed like I learned to like the taste of beer. Make it legal for me. I want to examine the fine tastes of weed.
Wait, so just because alcohol and smoking kill more people a year we have to legalize weed? So does this mean we automatically have to legalize everything that kills less people a year than alcohol and tobacco?
Maybe good old cracked can just argue for me:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/
Maybe good old cracked can just argue for me:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/
It seems a few people are taking my first sentence about alcohol and cigarettes seriously. I'm not suggesting that we do ban those, too; I was just pointing out the double standard.nklshaz said:
By the way, hallucinations from weed are rare, and really only happen if you overdose; moderation is the key. If you don't have a high enough tolerance for even small doses, then those people should be smart enough to stay the hell away from it. Naysayers keep clinging to rare side effects like these and blow them out of proportion.
Economically, it makes sense to legalize marijuana. Products can be held to high government standards (regarding health risks). Plus, it's a great new source of revenue to help fill that huge-ass gap in our deficit, and I doubt it would stop smokers and drinkers from, well, smoking and drinking. Even if it does, breweries and the tobacco company either need to adapt or go bankrupt. It's their fucking problem, and frankly it's hypocritical to preach less government regulation on big businesses, but it's okay for big businesses to run Big Brother to their agenda (you didn't say that, nklshaz; it's just a common problem). What about Blockbuster and Borders? They lost to online streaming and PDF books, and the aforementioned lobbyist groups are afraid of that happening to them. Well, I say: Tough shit!!
I think the stuff you're buying is laced. I think you'd have to get REALLY high to start hallucinating. Or use other in addition.reg42 said:
Story Time said:
That makes sense overall, but there's still a few flaws with that argument.Princess Rose said:
for instance:
http://www.hempprotein.co.uk/is-hemp-legal.aspx
That's the UK, but the key point is that growing hemp is legal, while growing marijuana is not.
Even though the plants are quite similar looking, that still shows that banning marijuana as such wouldn't strictly speaking have much impact unless you ban hemp as well.
(But a ban on hemp makes no sense from a drug abuse perspective, because hemp varieties contain next to no THC - You can eat foods derived from Hemp and nobody particularly cares.)
What is it with people and forgetting Prohibition? It was a major thing. A MAJOR THING.evilartist said:
Anyway, it makes zero economical sense to sell marijuana. People will either continue going to dealers (Because it won't be taxed, thus cheaper than the marijuana sold in stores), or just grow their own damn marijuana because it won't be illegal anymore. (It's not the same as people growing produce in a little garden, because produce isn't recreational anything.) Not only that, but growing marijuana would just take away farm land that would better be used for growing produce or raising cattle. Which is much more important than growing marijuana.
Not to mention, Marijuana would probably be cheaper than either produce, meat, or eggs...so they'd be replacing one good revenue source with a shitty one. Besides, even if they make a few hundred million dollars in Marijuana sales...the debt is over 14 trillion. IT WILL DO NOTHING.
Exactly.triggrhappy94 said:
Legalization is a more controversial issue than decriminalization. My guess is that we will see decriminalization in our lifetime.
Legalization would be a different thing all together though. You'll need a big culture shift to get the people who are still stuck in the days of reefer madness to accept trucks and trains and planes transporting marijuana from huge farms to processing plants, to be packaged and sold at convenience stores.
I don't think decriminalizing marijuana would change the rate of use very much. Legalizing it, however, would. And, like it or not, a lot of people in the country are apposed to increased usage of marijuana, on whatever grounds.
There are a couple of things that I think should be addressed before you have legalized marijuana---like people who drive under the influence. With alcohol, you can blow a breathalyzer, but there really isn't a way for an officer to decide on the spot if you might be driving under the influence of THC. Little things like that are small additional road blocks.
So I'm personally pro-decriminalization.
But pretty meh when it comes to legalization, leaning on the side of keeping it illegal.
Corperations bloo bloo bloo. Also, it's a drug that kills brain cells and makes you act like a dumbass, often in dangerous ways. I have no problem with people doing weed. I'm not a fan myself, but I'm not gonna shout at people who do it. It's illegal because a) it's dangerous and b) it's not an integral part of the world's economy and never has been, unlike alcohol and cigarettes. Without those two about, we'd be in a worse economic climate than we are now. The whole "marijuana is less lethal than drink driving etc" is stupid as hell. Why? MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL. IT IS HARDER TO GET THAN BOOZE. If as many people smoked weed as people who drink, it'd be just as bad. It's the truth. Go out and drink-drive. Not gonna end well. Go out and drive while high as a kite. Not gonna end well. Different side-effects, same result.
Yeah there has been people smoking pot for a long time, hell didn't native Americas use all kind of substances that we've since banned, but it still doesn't have the cultural value of drinking or smoking tabaco. You named two very old societies, and ones that no longer exist (well okay Celtics and Germans exist but they changed a bit over the years). Opinions and uses change over time. It's about a long tradition of use and the cultural value placed on the subject. For example, slavery was perfectly okay for a long time but then public opinions shifted and it was abolished. Drinking and smoking used to have lots of cultural value but have since declined and as a result have been under attack. Pot has never attained as much cultural capital and thus has never seen as strong resistance to keep it alive. People used to treat it differently but what happened a thousand years ago has little relevance in the cultural atmosphere of today. The past can influence use today but doesn't always. Maybe I should have been more clear.tofulove said:
As for tabaco, pssst, see that line where I said "in the US" yeah I was talking about the US. Even as such I know smoking has been around in Europe for at least a century. That's more then enough time to gain the kind of cultural capital needed to make it resilient to laws and a subject of protest. I'm not going to say anything about Europe's modern climate though since I have never been there and am not familiar with how things are going.
But what are the differences. If its decriminalized, would that mean its not illegal or is it just not enforced or what.Uszi said:
Also, DUI does mean Driving Under the Influence and that infulence is not limited to alcohol. You can be charged with DUI if you've taken too many of anything. And, DUI's are mostly up to the cop's disgression. Most cop will admitt that they've pulled over people who were blowing under .05, so a feild subriety test should be enough to really determine how high the person is.
Funny that this should be my first post~
Oh well, I wanted to sign up anyways.
So, do you think we should arrest and punish those who slit their wrists and shoot themselves in the crotch?
If they want to do that to themselves, they should be allowed to. Of course, all of the things (wrist slitting, shooting yourself anywhere, drinking, smoking) should be discouraged. But down right illegalized and punishable? That's insane.
We're not the government's people, the government is the people's government.
We've put them there to make the country a better place, and yes that includes protecting the citizens. But protecting the citizens from themselves, and punishing the people for not letting the government to protect them, is just not right.
The government should ideally be there to let us know about harmful things so that we can avoid them, protect us from dangers by attempting to keep malevolent people away from the puplic and by trying to rehabilitate those people.
They should be giving all the information they can, and they should strike down on people who are intentionally harming others. But going after people who harm themselves?
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
#5: Not sure about this one, it's not one I would personally use. What I do think however is that if drugs were sold by government controlled, or at least regulated in some way, we'd prevent the problems that comes with the stuff being sold on the street. And it could then be taxed. Whatever miniscule amount the taxing would bring it, it'd be better than nothing.
Right now, the way I understand it, we're using a fuckton of money on just keeping pot-related criminals locked up.
It is talking about a ton of stuff I know nothing about, though. I do see the problem, letting people sell it in stores with extra taxes would not prevent growers from selling it for a lower price. But it's better than having only illegal growers who may or may not mix it with other stuff and who may or may not also want to sell other stuff? (like I know anything about that...)
#4: I think that's a pretty shitty argument either way.
#3: Also an argument I consider a shit one.
The way to fight uneducated, biased information and lies is not to fight fire with fire...
#2: "But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter."
They're all bad for you, yes. Should that mean we should illegalize it? Nope.
If you're subjecting other people to THC, alcohol or nicotine either by second hand smoke, injecting it into their eyeballs or because of some shit you decide to do under the influence, then you should be held accountable for that.
But doing anything you damn well please to yourself should fall under the watered down term that people like to throw around, semmingly without really meaning it; Freedom.
#1: The way I've heard it, THC is not physically addictive, meaning that you won't be physically dependant on it, you won't get ill because you're not getting your drug. But it is psychologically addictive, meaning that you might find it so enjoyable that you want to do it again and again. I don't know for sure.
Either way, addiction is bad, be it physical or psychological, and therefore we should be there to help, guide and give out information freely to prevent addictions and to help those who already has them.
Oh well, I wanted to sign up anyways.
Yep, that's a very fine analogy you got there.Phlakes said:
So, do you think we should arrest and punish those who slit their wrists and shoot themselves in the crotch?
If they want to do that to themselves, they should be allowed to. Of course, all of the things (wrist slitting, shooting yourself anywhere, drinking, smoking) should be discouraged. But down right illegalized and punishable? That's insane.
I think that's a terrifying outlook on society.
We're not the government's people, the government is the people's government.
We've put them there to make the country a better place, and yes that includes protecting the citizens. But protecting the citizens from themselves, and punishing the people for not letting the government to protect them, is just not right.
The government should ideally be there to let us know about harmful things so that we can avoid them, protect us from dangers by attempting to keep malevolent people away from the puplic and by trying to rehabilitate those people.
They should be giving all the information they can, and they should strike down on people who are intentionally harming others. But going after people who harm themselves?
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Those are actually insightful to me, as some of those are some arguments that I might have used. Initiate idea refining process!
#5: Not sure about this one, it's not one I would personally use. What I do think however is that if drugs were sold by government controlled, or at least regulated in some way, we'd prevent the problems that comes with the stuff being sold on the street. And it could then be taxed. Whatever miniscule amount the taxing would bring it, it'd be better than nothing.
Right now, the way I understand it, we're using a fuckton of money on just keeping pot-related criminals locked up.
It is talking about a ton of stuff I know nothing about, though. I do see the problem, letting people sell it in stores with extra taxes would not prevent growers from selling it for a lower price. But it's better than having only illegal growers who may or may not mix it with other stuff and who may or may not also want to sell other stuff? (like I know anything about that...)
#4: I think that's a pretty shitty argument either way.
#3: Also an argument I consider a shit one.
The way to fight uneducated, biased information and lies is not to fight fire with fire...
#2: "But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter."
They're all bad for you, yes. Should that mean we should illegalize it? Nope.
If you're subjecting other people to THC, alcohol or nicotine either by second hand smoke, injecting it into their eyeballs or because of some shit you decide to do under the influence, then you should be held accountable for that.
But doing anything you damn well please to yourself should fall under the watered down term that people like to throw around, semmingly without really meaning it; Freedom.
#1: The way I've heard it, THC is not physically addictive, meaning that you won't be physically dependant on it, you won't get ill because you're not getting your drug. But it is psychologically addictive, meaning that you might find it so enjoyable that you want to do it again and again. I don't know for sure.
Either way, addiction is bad, be it physical or psychological, and therefore we should be there to help, guide and give out information freely to prevent addictions and to help those who already has them.
I'll address your last sentence first: Stupid. Of course they have another agenda, just like people who drink does. Do you think people who like to drink (for example a glass of red wine on a saturdag afternoon) has no other agenda than I WANNA BE A FILTHY DRUNK! You really cant imagine it possible that people want to smoke a joint a saturday afternoon without ending up on the sidewalk the next week? I think you need to open your eyes and brain a bit.Kopikatsu said:
By your logic we all would be heavy duty drug addicts. Smoking is a high, at first at least, drinking is a high, hell JOGGING is a high...well...a high...I guess even joggers will end up shooting heroin in no time. Right? Really?
I'd like to know if you've ever smoked pot. If not, then you should think again because you really dont have a clue what you are talking about. If you have, you should also think again because if you would by your own logic be a heavy duty drug addict and be on the streets instead of posting on the escapist.
I've smoked pot. Several times. Last time was...7-8 years ago. I drink very seldom because I hate being sick. I dont smoke, but I've been offered cocaine and other drugs, but I said no because I didnt want to. I didnt look for a bigger high. I have no desire to be friends with a bunch of heavy duty drug addicts, and I have no desire to be a criminal. I WOULD like the option to be able to smoke a joint a saturday night and relax in my own couch, instead of going out, drink and be stabbed down by some idiot.
Crime would drop because there will be less use for illegal drugs. When anything is state-controlled the crime around it will drop. Not just because it is not illegal to sell anymore, but because ALL the illegal business tied to it will be unnecessary. Will it disappear 100%? No. But a lot of it would be gone. Some would still buy illegal, but that happens with alcohol too. Most people though would prefer quality-controlled merchandise so they know what they smoke.
Am I saying that I want it to be legal to sit in school or at work and be high? No. Of course not. But I dont want people to be drunk in school or at work either. I just want to be able to make a batch of hash brownies or smoke a joint without the risk of jail "just because".
There is no reason for it be banned, marijuana plants aren't frikkin miniguns. People can make their own damn decisions, and I feel that if someone is of a certain age and can understand the risks involved, they should be able to smoke it, or grow it. Nothing pisses me off more that smug assholes calling for more government intervention into the private affairs of citizens and calling for more regulation.
Now, cocaine, heroin, meth and other such drugs are a completely different can of worms...
Now, cocaine, heroin, meth and other such drugs are a completely different can of worms...
