I don't know where you get your information from but weed DOES NOT make you hallucinate. Seriously where do people here this stuff?nklshaz said:The fact that it directly kills brain cells is the main reason. And legalizing it would increase the risk of people driving while hallucinating. While the effects may not be perceived as being "as bad" as cigarettes or alcohol, it still is bad for you, and we're probably better off without it.
EDIT: Before you reply, please read my other posts on this thread. Thank you
Why is marijuana illegal?
- Thread starter alik44
- Start date
Recommended Videos
1 In order to mass produce it, you need quite some space and the right equipment to make the right stuff. Like any crops, it takes skill, good material and experience to do it right, especially if you want to grow good quality stuff, which you will need if you want be successful. If you legalise it, the rules of the free market apply, which include a combination of price, service, quality and quantity. Eventually the market will be dominated by some big players and hobbyists/specialists. you bet you can tax those.charlest92 said:
2 There is plenty of equipment to test people on cannabis use as well. I don't see your point, except in admitting its similar to Alcohol on that point.
3 I agree that the US has quite some stupid people. However, if they can handle a gun or handle a hard drug, I don't see why they can't handle cannabis. Newsflash, the US isn't the only country with idiots.
I just wanna point out that the nonsense regarding that "marijuana kills braincells" is PURE bullshit and has not been proven.
I guess I'm lucky we crossed paths on this site before me and my friends set off for Amsterdam in January, haha, thanks for the helpful advice, I'll be sure to take it into account.FC Groningen said:
On an unrelated note, how are the winters in the Netherlands?
First you should know that I stand from a pharmaceutical classification standpoint, not lingo or shorthand. That is what that article was referring to by marijuana being classified as a narcotic.Chronologger said:
Since you seem to be interested in the topic I will go into more detail. Marijuana is a tricky drug, and is not actually classified as anything. It displays traits from various drug categories including stimulants, depressants (as odd as that sounds), hallucinogens and sedatives. Because of this it is often classified under various categories, but really belongs in its own. Narcotics are not one of them as that is a poorly defined term used to mean any number of things depending on the context. Marijuana's most commonly described effects however, a calming pleasantness and a general attitude of "easy going" ect... falls under the category of hallucinogen.
Drug classification indicating Hallucinogenic Properties:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
http://www.enotes.com/drugs-substances-encyclopedia/marijuana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis%28drug%29
What a hallucinogen is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen
http://archives.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/146.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/hallucinogens.html
A brief excerpt used in both the wikipedia and drugabuse.gov link
(1) in proportion to other effects, changes in thought, perception, and mood should predominate;
(2) intellectual or memory impairment should be minimal;
(3) stupor, narcosis, or excessive stimulation should not be an integral effect;
(4) autonomic nervous system side effects should be minimal; and
(5) addictive craving should be absent.
Nowhere does it say Hallucinates or "sees something that is not there". Hallucination is not a described effect of hallucinogens but merely a trait some members of the category have.
Just to add my tuppence, it is illegal for a host of reasons, not all of them known or even consciously decided.
It is still illegal because it is easier to make laws than remove them.
And for those who believe that the substance in question is noxious and thus should remain illegal, I'd like to point out that an item being illegal does not make that item unattainable, or even hard to find, but rather it forces the finite amount of police and tax dollars to be put to the use of finding, apprehending, and incarcerating the users of said item. No small feat. And in this particular case (cannabis), the 40-odd years spent doing so have shown approximately zero effectiveness in reducing the amount of use among the denizens, and has led to the United States having a higher percentage of it's own population in prison than any other Western country.
Surely, one would assume that with those kind of statistics, we'd be the most drug-free nation on earth. We aren't. It comes down to the fact that it isn't worth the cost to keep it illegal. I, personally, feel the same about all drugs, but cannabis is the most egregious example of cost/benefit fuckery.
It is still illegal because it is easier to make laws than remove them.
And for those who believe that the substance in question is noxious and thus should remain illegal, I'd like to point out that an item being illegal does not make that item unattainable, or even hard to find, but rather it forces the finite amount of police and tax dollars to be put to the use of finding, apprehending, and incarcerating the users of said item. No small feat. And in this particular case (cannabis), the 40-odd years spent doing so have shown approximately zero effectiveness in reducing the amount of use among the denizens, and has led to the United States having a higher percentage of it's own population in prison than any other Western country.
Surely, one would assume that with those kind of statistics, we'd be the most drug-free nation on earth. We aren't. It comes down to the fact that it isn't worth the cost to keep it illegal. I, personally, feel the same about all drugs, but cannabis is the most egregious example of cost/benefit fuckery.
You can start making all sorts of logical and equivalency arguments for and against weed, especially if you start including prescription meds and over-the-counter/behind-the-counter drugs, but there's only one real reason why it stays illegal:
The way weed is discussed it is instantly de-legitimized as a topic regardless of setting.
This happens because the substance actually exists between two seemingly all-encompassing and culturally-accepted negative stereotypes - that of the stoned slacker and that of the drug warlord. Which strawman dominates depends on which audience you're talking to. If you're speaking to (unfair generalizations inc) conservative, moralizing, law and order types, then the drug is the foundation of gang violence. If you're speaking to college-age, libertarian, hope and peace types, then you laugh it off as a naive and selfish desire that would do nothing but hinder the will and aspirations of the young.
The surprising part is that both of these ideas are ingrained remarkably deep in American culture despite their often contradictory set of assumptions about the drug. The result is that reasonable discussion about personal responsibility for relatively minor risks gets subsumed by unavoidable cultural biases, and we have yet to see a real "Howard Beale moment" that might break that kind of trance. It's easier to do on the local levels where the sensationalist media isn't as prevalent, but as long as these feelings control the national discussion, this issue is unfortunately going nowhere.
The way weed is discussed it is instantly de-legitimized as a topic regardless of setting.
This happens because the substance actually exists between two seemingly all-encompassing and culturally-accepted negative stereotypes - that of the stoned slacker and that of the drug warlord. Which strawman dominates depends on which audience you're talking to. If you're speaking to (unfair generalizations inc) conservative, moralizing, law and order types, then the drug is the foundation of gang violence. If you're speaking to college-age, libertarian, hope and peace types, then you laugh it off as a naive and selfish desire that would do nothing but hinder the will and aspirations of the young.
The surprising part is that both of these ideas are ingrained remarkably deep in American culture despite their often contradictory set of assumptions about the drug. The result is that reasonable discussion about personal responsibility for relatively minor risks gets subsumed by unavoidable cultural biases, and we have yet to see a real "Howard Beale moment" that might break that kind of trance. It's easier to do on the local levels where the sensationalist media isn't as prevalent, but as long as these feelings control the national discussion, this issue is unfortunately going nowhere.
Well thanks for clearing that one up... kind of, haha.Navvan said:
Would it be fair to say that I was wrong but kind of right at the same time? Because clearly after reading that, the general consensus is that it is in a class of its own, so while it's not strictly a hallucinogen, it's also not confined to any other drug classification.
Also when I think of hallucinogen, the first few things I think of is LSD, shrooms or salvia, which are muuuuuuch different to marijuana as we all know, I just wasn't thinking of the most finite details of drug qualities and applying them to THIS thread because it could raise a lot of wrong ideas for a lot of people.
Fair?
Look it up. Wikipedia explains it rather well.Suman1991 said:
To put it very simply, you're only allowed to consume so much marijuana in so much time and in a specific price, all in only a single location (the famous "coffee shops") so long as the establishment has a licence, and follows certain laws. They cannot advertise nor sell it except at that specific place. If they see you taking it outside, you're arrested for possession. If you grow it without a licence and proof that you're using it for a business that is paying tax, you're screwed as well. It's a lot more complicated, but you get the idea.
It would be fair that to say it does not cause hallucinations and that its effects are very different than LSD. I'm a sticker for spreading accurate information though and its primary effect belongs in the hallucinogen category. It would be wrong to say it is entirely an hallucinogen however.Chronologger said:Well thanks for clearing that one up... kind of, haha.
Would it be fair to say that I was wrong but kind of right at the same time? Because clearly after reading that, the general consensus is that it is in a class of its own, so while it's not strictly a hallucinogen, it's also not confined to any other drug classification.
Also when I think of hallucinogen, the first few things I think of is LSD, shrooms or salvia, which are muuuuuuch different to marijuana as we all know, I just wasn't thinking of the most finite details of drug qualities and applying them to THIS thread because it could raise a lot of wrong ideas for a lot of people.
Fair?
Valid arguments and accurate information is the way to fight ignorance. Not misinformation or any other form of deception.
weed doesnt make you see shit that isnt there because the concentration of THC is generally far too small. hallucinagens are substances that alter the perception of the user, be it seeing something that isnt really there or hearing something or feeling warm or seeing colours brighter each being examples.
that being said, THC, can cause more intense perception changes with increased dose... ie: you smoke more you feel more of the effect
maybe im wrong, im still kinda stoned
that being said, THC, can cause more intense perception changes with increased dose... ie: you smoke more you feel more of the effect
maybe im wrong, im still kinda stoned
Read my post please. "Look at the prohibition". That is why Alcohol is still legal. I think Alcohol and smoking should also be illegal, but the fact that they are legal already, and popular, makes it pretty much impossible to make illegal. That is why weed should be kept illegal.eljawa said:
I have a few theories:
1. In some places, it grows wild and therefore is impossible to fully control. Since it is a potentially dangerous drug and also a potentially very profitable one, control needs to be airtight if they are to open that door, or at least better than it is now.
2. Not enough research has been done, or at least, not enough conclusive evidence has been drawn from that research. Levels of addiction, lung and respiratory damage, intensity of trip e.t.c. vary so wildly from person to person and depend on both the type of marijuana and the method of taking it (smoking, vaporizing, eating, e.t.c.). Marijuana may be considered too much of a wild card.
3. Just because other dangerous things are legal doesn't mean that more dangerous things ought to be legal. It may raise a question of double standards, but that alone isn't enough to justify legalizing a hallucinogenic.
Don't get me wrong: I approve of marijuana use in general. The issue is that it is still a drug, and it can be a dangerous one if it's not used carefully. And many people refuse to use it carefully. It CAN be addictive, so stop saying that it's 'totally not, not at all.' It certainly can be, depending on the person and the frequency of use. And I'm sick of hearing that marijuana is 'healthy'. Dude ... on a stress level, sure, but you're still inhaling hot smoke. That's never good for your lungs, and I can't believe that some people still don't see that.
Marijuana's great, but it isn't fucking broccoli.
1. In some places, it grows wild and therefore is impossible to fully control. Since it is a potentially dangerous drug and also a potentially very profitable one, control needs to be airtight if they are to open that door, or at least better than it is now.
2. Not enough research has been done, or at least, not enough conclusive evidence has been drawn from that research. Levels of addiction, lung and respiratory damage, intensity of trip e.t.c. vary so wildly from person to person and depend on both the type of marijuana and the method of taking it (smoking, vaporizing, eating, e.t.c.). Marijuana may be considered too much of a wild card.
3. Just because other dangerous things are legal doesn't mean that more dangerous things ought to be legal. It may raise a question of double standards, but that alone isn't enough to justify legalizing a hallucinogenic.
Don't get me wrong: I approve of marijuana use in general. The issue is that it is still a drug, and it can be a dangerous one if it's not used carefully. And many people refuse to use it carefully. It CAN be addictive, so stop saying that it's 'totally not, not at all.' It certainly can be, depending on the person and the frequency of use. And I'm sick of hearing that marijuana is 'healthy'. Dude ... on a stress level, sure, but you're still inhaling hot smoke. That's never good for your lungs, and I can't believe that some people still don't see that.
Marijuana's great, but it isn't fucking broccoli.
Not as dangerous as X and Y aren't good reasons to legalize something, even if those two substances are legal. Weed is dangerous. Weed will damage your lungs faster than cigarettes - please don't dispute that, weed is held in when it's smoked and burns slower - when smoked at the same rate. It does cause brain damage. It does cause have long term side effects. It does not cause cancer, that one I'll give it. It does lead to other, more potent drugs. It does ruin lives.
Yes, cigarettes are probably worse for your health.
Yes, alcohol has probably fucked up more lives than weed (maybe not proportionally).
But neither of those are the point. I've heard the arguments of course. "Less people would drink if they can smoke weed". I've known two people who only smoked weed and chose not to drink. Both of them ended up picking up drinking and moved on to harder drugs. "If people could smoke weed they wouldn't smoke cigarettes. Wrong again. I know plenty of people who do both, in fact the people I know who smoke weed smoke cigarettes the most.
The bottom line of illegal weed is that it is harmful and it does fuck people up. Governments don't legalize it because we already have more than enough things to fuck ourselves up on, saying we should legalize weed is like saying "Well, this guy has already shot himself in the leg so we better give himself a knife so he can stab the other one".
That all said I think a legalization plan would, if well implimented, would be fantastic for everyone as long as it's closely monitered and taxexd the hell out of.
Yes, cigarettes are probably worse for your health.
Yes, alcohol has probably fucked up more lives than weed (maybe not proportionally).
But neither of those are the point. I've heard the arguments of course. "Less people would drink if they can smoke weed". I've known two people who only smoked weed and chose not to drink. Both of them ended up picking up drinking and moved on to harder drugs. "If people could smoke weed they wouldn't smoke cigarettes. Wrong again. I know plenty of people who do both, in fact the people I know who smoke weed smoke cigarettes the most.
The bottom line of illegal weed is that it is harmful and it does fuck people up. Governments don't legalize it because we already have more than enough things to fuck ourselves up on, saying we should legalize weed is like saying "Well, this guy has already shot himself in the leg so we better give himself a knife so he can stab the other one".
That all said I think a legalization plan would, if well implimented, would be fantastic for everyone as long as it's closely monitered and taxexd the hell out of.
How long does it take to be tested for THC content? Maybe the reason Marijuana's illegal, even though alcohol is not, is because police can't test for it right then and there like a breathalyzer?
In an attempt to find this answer, the only results that came up for me was how long a lab takes to give you the results.
Source:http://www.craigmedical.com/Hair_Drug-Test_FAQ.htm
In an attempt to find this answer, the only results that came up for me was how long a lab takes to give you the results.
Source:http://www.craigmedical.com/Hair_Drug-Test_FAQ.htm