GOP:Should cannabis be legalised?

[Legolam]

Cannabis, marijuana, hash, green, pot, wacky backy - whatever you call it.

Do you think that this should be legalised in your particular country, or have the rules relaxed on its possesion?

I'm interested to hear your views on this as Britain has recently voted to relax the rules on possesion. I'm especially interested to hear what the Dutch think about cannabis. Let the discussions/arguments begin!!

[DGoeij]

Well, the current Dutch situation on 'soft drugs', as we describe them, is the worst thing any law student could come across. But it does work somehow. Technically, selling, possesion and creating/growing drugs is forbidden by law. But the Dutch state allows its citizens to carry a maximum of 5 grams of marijuana on its person without facing prosecution. Also, certain places in a designated area are allowed to sell these kind of quantities to individuals, and if one wishes so, in these places the drugs can be used. The famous Dutch coffee-shops. In this way, half-way legal places are created where decent citizens can buy and sometimes use their form of relaxation, without having to deal with disturbing figures in questionable neighbourhoods.
Meanwhile, lethal drugs (hard drugs), like XTC, herione and such are striclty forbidden and remain so, heavily prosecuted by the police.
Problem on the soft-drug side is, every person is also allowed to have a maximum of 5 plants at home, in order to grow his/her own 'stuff'. So, a coffee-shop would need like dozens of home-growing people, not using temselves to supply its customers. Off course, entire green-houses full of plants exist in the country, and those are still sought and found by the police. Mostly on request by our neighbouring states, who find that it's citizens should not be supplied by the Dutch in their use of their alternative tobacco. Legalisation would probably create a very profitable market, strictly Dutch supplied, because of our years of experience in growing these products. So I perfectly understand why other European nations very much disagree with the idea of legalisation.

I'm not a user, simply because to me it smells like burning horse manure, but I'd say it should be legalised. As far as the research points out, it's less dangerous than alcohol, less addictive, and a user doesn't become agressive either. Actually you feel very lazy, too tired to pick up your heavy limbs, hence the term 'stoned'. So I'm in favour of legalisation. A police officer has more important things to do than hunting pot.

[ReadWryt]

Firstly I suggest we get some terms straight here. I, personally, am 100% AGAINST the "Legalization" of cannabis. Having siad that let me clarify...in the 20's in the U.S. Alchohol was made illegal for manufacture and consumption in what is called "The Great Prohibition". Once this law was struck down Alchohol use was "Decriminalized" but not "Legalized". Legalization would make it permissable to buy or sell alchohol from a person of any age or to a person of any age. Similarly Tobacco is Decriminalized in that one must be 18 years of age or older to buy it. When you speak of Legalizing Cannabis you are actually talking about making it available to everyone who might desire it, but in Decriminalizing it, the act I prefer, you would be setting limits on the lowest age of a perchaser/possessor as well as other factors.

I feel that in the long run, for the amount of damage that the substance causes, the fact that here in California the number of criminals imprisoned for possession of Marajuana is equal or greater then the number of Rapists and Killers, and yet criminals are regularly given shorter sentencing and parole is issued more and more often because of concerns over the crowding in our prisons. This is insane in my opinion. People who are causing damage, mayhem and terror on the citizenry are rarely, if ever, doing so after smoking a joint! And yet our disfunctional "War on Drugs" seems to be more interested in siezing property under the Zero Tollerance Policy then stopping and punishing people causing real and tangable harm to society in general.

I'm not one of those who point to the "War on Drugs" and declare that we "have lost" it and we should end it. To do so would make as much sense as pointing to President Johnson's "War on Povery" and state that because IT has failed we should stop fighting IT, but I would definately state that both need major overhauls and re-workings which would make them more effective and better serve the population in general. I do NOT feel that spending so much money busting some guy smoking a doobie in his pickup truck at the beach for possession and trying to put him behind bars for years because he had an Oz. or more instead of just dragging him into the Drunk Tank with the rest of the people busted for attempting to drive under the influence...

Um...I've gone on too long, I'll clam up now for a while. :)

[DGoeij]

Well, here in the low countries everybody understands what you mean when you say you wish to see cannabis legalized. Meaning it should not be a totally forbidden substance, but should have the same status as alcohol. For alcoholic beverages, in my country you also need to have a permit to sell, and it is law that is should only be sold to people 18 and older (16 concerning light beer and wine).
But if you wish to use 'decriminalized', fine, let's have it decriminalized. Around here, we're halfway there.:)

[LadyGaladriel]

Cannabis is good for MS people .


It should only be for people with this condition . It shou.ld only be liminated in Prescription only otherwise people will just abuse it.

[DGoeij]

Abuse it? Could you explain what you would call abuse?

[LadyGaladriel]

I meant to abuse the Right and therefore abuse Cannabis by using it when not needed.


This is also for the Care of the Docotr . It should only be legalisted for this purpose as it can encourage younger adults and older ones to go onto harder substances .

[Legolam]

I'm not sure that it "helps" MS. That seems to be the reason that "decriminalising" (you knew what I meant!) cannabis seems to be on the agenda. The effects on the symptoms of MS are not proven in scientific studies (I'd find some to prove my point but I can't be bothered right now), so I'm not sure if this is a legitimate argument.

Secondly, I don't believe that it encourages people to spiral out of control onto harder and harder drugs. Many of my friends (not me, however) smoke pot regularly, and they are among the most diligent of students, getting good grades at uni and certainly not going near other drugs.

However, I do believe that smoking pot encourages the smoking of tobacco. Youngsters start off smoking pot at a fairly early age because they think it's cool and like the effects, then get addicted to the tobacco that's mixed in the joint and find they have to buy cigarettes during the day to satisfy their craving.

I'm not entirely sure what they are proposing in Britain at the moment. I think it involves the plan that if you are caught with less than 5g on your person and are not selling it to anyone else, you get it confiscated and get an official warning. "Coffee shops" will still be banned, although people are continually trying to open them up round here despite this :rolleyes:

[Mormegil]

I think that cannabis should be decriminalised in Britain, along the same lines as Holland. We can see what has happened in Holland and use it as a role model.

Similar to Legolam, at my university there are lots of people who smoke joints, and they are not criminals or bad people. They smoke a joint the same way that someone else would smoke a cigarette or have an alcoholic beverage. It's just the way that they choose to relax.

The fact is that in order to obtain the cannabis to smoke, these people have to go to drug dealers who try to push harder drugs upon them. Which must be stopped.
The British government is effectively saying that they will turn a blind eye to people who are using cannabis. But the government still wants people to use dealers.
The government could make so much money in tax by decriminalising cannabis further and allowing Dutch style coffee shops. The money would then be going to the government instead of the dealers. People would be able to buy their cannabis legally, without having to go to dealers. This approach would help to stop people moving from cannabis to harder drugs because dealers wouldn't have the opportunity to push it upon them.
It would also cut down on the amount of police work, allowing them to get on with proper crime.

From a personal view, I see no reason why cannabis shouldn't be treated like tobacco or alcohol. Both of these are harmful to the user. And in the case of alcohol, it is more likely to cause criminal activity from the user than cannabis is.
I say if people want to get stoned then let them. They are allowed to go out and drink until they are wasted, so why not let them smoke pot?

Above all, Britain is a democracy, majority should rule. If the governement did a referendum on whether cannabis should be decriminalised to the same levels as Holland, I'm sure most people in Britain would be in favour of it.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
I meant to abuse the Right and therefore abuse Cannabis by using it when not needed.

This is also for the Care of the Docotr . It should only be legalisted for this purpose as it can encourage younger adults and older ones to go onto harder substances .

Actually decriminalizing cannabis is the best way of keeping the use of soft and hard drugs apart. Currently, criminals selling soft drugs encourage their customers to try the harder, more expensive and more addictive drugs they also sell.
A lot of people drink alcohol and buy this in shops, they don't get the idea of finding a shot of heroine while they're at it, do they?

Oh, and here in the Netherlands there is no scientific proof that cannabis is a benefit to MS or terminal cancer patients. But a lot of people in this situation use cannabis as a medicine against pain and it does seem to help them.

[ReadWryt]

...I dunno...some of the flakiest and most unreliable people I know are not hard to deal with on a regular basis when they aren't smoking dope, but that is a personal problem that THEY, as individuals, have and is not indicative of the overall effects on a societal level. I just think that Law Enforcement dollars could be better spent, but then I'm fiscally quite conservative.

[Legolam]

Since no-one's really doing it just now, I'll play Devil's Advocate for a while:

RW is right. Cannabis can cause previously lively people to become lazy in the way stoned people are normally caricatured. Even worse, a minority of people react badly to cannabis and become withdrawn and seriously clinically depressed.

Cannabis as a medical treatment is useful only as a painkiller, and regular painkillers or alcohol are just as effective. In a trial in London, decriminalising cannabis has pushed crime rates through the roof as more people flood to the area to by "legal drugs". There have been more assaults and drug related crime and the locals are pushing for the pilot scheme to be stopped.

Finally, smoking causes cancer. Smoking pot is just the same, and can be more carcinogenic because filters are often not used.

[ReadWryt]

Actually, THC...the active ingredient in Marajuana...does not KILL pain. It actually is involved in the very complex business of effecting short term memory. THC receptors are found not only in the brain, but in the female organs involved in the birthing process as well Since they originaly developed for the purpose of being triggered by a chemical generated by the human body itself, it is thought that the THC receptors are there to help us forget things like pain and the myriad things, Beer ads...bad jokes and such, that we would otherwise go crazy if we were forced to remember every one of them.

Just thought that I would give some clarification in this matter...

[LadyGaladriel]

Its Fact that Cannabis leads to harder drugs as soon people dont get the "buzz" anymore .


Young people are starting to think drugs are ok becuase soon cocaine ect will start being debated

[Gloer]

Cannabis should not be legalized.

We should all encourage decreasing all consuption of substances that are mainly used to artificially make people
- less capable for making sound decisions
- less determined
- less intelligent
- less healthy
- smell bad, unable to speak clearly, shout, etcanti-social behaviour
just to make them feel good.

Now nevertheless if you and are determined to think sharp, maintain cotrolled behaviour and remain social and active and helthy, then I do not mind the use of
- alcohol
- tobacco
- cannabis.

But the use of these puts you under a burden of proof:
- You are a drunken, chainsmoking drug addict until otherwise shown.

I always admire those cavalry codes of 19th century in which an officer always drunk his schnapps but never was allowed to get drunk.´If he did he made himself a laughingstock and an embarrasment. I think they regularily flogged their drunkenly behaving collagues to make them look respectable. It is better to look like someone who has been mugged and robbed by thugs than intoxicated by yourself.

[ReadWryt]

Its Fact that Cannabis leads to harder drugs as soon people dont get the "buzz" anymore .

Oh yeah, and it's a fact that Shoplifters, most of whom can afford to purchase that which they are stealing but most often do so because of the "rush" they get, eventually move on to more dangerous crimes because they don't get as big of a "rush" anymore...

No, neither of these are "Facts", a fact would be that everyone who has ever drank a beer has died...

[Gloer]

What good would it do to anyone to "legalize" substances that have no long term positive effects on the user?

Someone might even get the idea that using cannabis is OK or being wasted is OK or just enjoying escapist covardly pleasures instead of getting a grip of ones life is OK.

It is not ok.
No legal definition nor criminalisation have anything to do with it.
It should be self evident that harmful substances make people fall further and further from perfection and God if you like.

[ReadWryt]

...and so the Government should be the arbiters of what forms of "..the persuit of happiness.." the people should be permitted to persue? I mean, wouldn't that mean that the people who Read for escapism would be at risk? What long term good does Bungee Jumping do, or Sky Diving, or buying and using Pronography...or Horror Movies? Will we be outlawing Alchohol then?? Tobacco???

It seems like only the substances for which there is already a large Revenue Base for the Government gets a fair shake when being evaluated for these purposes...would we be having this conversation if there were millions of dollars in taxes being collected off of the sale of Marajuana? I think not, but talk about making Tobacco illegal and the Government imediately flashes on how much money they will lose from the sales and income tax collected from the Industry.

It should be self evident that harmful substances make people fall further and further from perfection and God if you like.

If ever the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are made based on this criteria I would certainly hope for a rapid and painless demise to save me from that which the earliest European settlers of this nation fled their homes to avoid...

[Gloer]

... a man seeking for pleasure was highly scorned.

But such activities were legally forbidden only at times of trouble.

I do not think it is neccessary to make any laws against anything. I call for a more intolerant attitude towards clearly stupid and harmful habits.

[7doubles]

the tax whould be outragious consitering the tabaco market hikes.
it would be intrusting though!

[ReadWryt]

Oh yeah, tell me about it. One of the Trained Monkeys in the California State Assembly proposed a $3 per pack tax on Cigarettes. That would bring the price up by 80% to around $7-8. My feeling is that any product that is so dangerous that the government feels they need to discourage the use of they should remove from the market and that by taxing the sale of them they are actually condoning the use, ergo the smokers of the state should have been the primary recipients of ALL of the Tobacco Lawsuit money since the State condoned the use of what their lawyers proved was "Harmfull to the health of the citizens". But in this state it's been made clear that the vast majority of the Tobacco Lawsuit money will NOT be used for anything having to do with Tobacco, and that the last thing in the world this limp wristed puppet in charge is willing to do is give any money back to the tax payers. He entered with a 6 Billion dollar surplus and refused to give any of it back to the people who were obviously overcharged, then ran to Washington D.C. playing Robin Hood in a futile attempt to get the federal government to make the Energy Companies pay back "Overcharges" to the rate payers. (The estimated Deficit is now at $22 billion, meaning that in four years we have chocked up a whopping $28 billion in expenses! To put that into perspective NASA's 2002 appropriation was $14.8 billion, it is roughly 30 times what The Fellowship of the Ring has made at the boxoffice and the new Federal Budget supplies $27.7 billion for highway funding.)

If Pot were decriminalized here it would be taxed through the roof and regulated to death. There would be a "Marajuana Tax" which would be factored into the retail price and then a Sales Tax would be charged on THAT, just the way that the 50 cent per pack "Meathead Tax" is made a part of the Retail Price, and then a 6% Sales tax is charged on both the Cigarettes AND the 50 cent tax. Taxing taxes...gee, I think it's time for folks to head out to the bay and start tossing cases of cigarettes overboard...no, wait...Greenpeace would skin us alive, nevermind.

The revenues that Marajuana would generate would be immense. The fines from pulling idiots over for driving under the influence would fund entire school districts! The legitimate market would probably generate well over 100,000 jobs and you can bet that the local dealer pushing dime bags out his door is NOT filing with the IRS at the end of the year, OH NO!

It's another case of some tight butt members of the Rightious Right Wing embarassing me for being a fellow republican because Pot isn't on the approved "Drug List" with Tobacco and Booze, but then folks can't go out back and plant a Vodka Tree so I suppose that controlling the means of production has EVERYTHING to do with it. Sometimes I think that Carl Marx was about 10% right man...Grrrrr! Ok, rant over...

[Grond]

RW, I agree with you 100% man. You're definately on the right track, man. *doing imitation of Cheech Marin*

Seriously, alcohol and tobacco pose a much greater health risk than occasional, casual use of marijuana. I see nothing wrong with it and wish it had been available medically when my Mom was going through chemotherapy 5 years ago. (It would have been great getting high with her!)

[Gloer]

What difference does it make if a substance is less harmful than an other when it nevertheless is harmful?

Shouldn't we prove that marijuana is actually healthy and harmless before encourageing the use of iut in any way? Someone was on the right track... Grond smoking prescription pot with his mother, yes!

Alcohol and tobacco are both established hazards and entangled to western history and culture. Wine, beer, liquers and cigars are high tech agricultural products that symbolize status and luxory, Excessive use of smokes and alcohol regardles of quality is combatted and with rise of general standard of living usually this battle is partially won. People drink more beer athan spirits and wine with food than without it. Smoking is forbidden in many public areas but a cigar every now and then becomes more popular. The status and luxory of enjoying a fine product outweights the hazards,

Now: Marihuana has no status. Users are young, careless dude-types. Pot goes with moonshine. In the Netherlands there might be a culture where there is pot also as a quality product for the well-off as well as the dudes and tourists.

[Grond]

Okay Gloer, I give.... but what about Hashish???? 50 times better than grass. :)

[Gloer]

Actually I once met an arab or a tunisian muslim anyhow. He was very religious. As a student in Germany he never touched beer or any alcohol nor tobacco. He quite rationally claimed that those substances are not good for ones body and they blur your thoughts and as that is the why the prophet has forbidden them.

And then he would go in his room to his waterpipe and smoke some of the finest weed of Tunisia. Probably hashish too, I wouldn't know. t was 5 years ago. Sometimes I wonder if he was one of the 19 assassins that flew the planes to WTC. Didn't bother to check.

The point is that in the islamic world there probably is hash culture up to the standards of the wine making in the West. They did in Afghanistan already during the times of Marco Polo and teh mongols. Ever heard of the Old man of the mountains. He ruled an army of religious zealots that would murder any one on hios command. He lived in an impregneble mountain fort in Hindukush. He drugged his men with hash and took them to a garden full of women. then he would order them to kill some mongol lord. The men would do anything to get again to the garden. These killers were named "assassin" because of their hashish usage,

[Parrot]

Whoa, Dude…. no… seriously though….. it’s illegal?

Hey…. anybody else getting hungry?

[Rangerdave]

Stolen from HBO

War on Drugs
8/02/02

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the war on drugs is a more frustrating stalemate than a tug-of-war on ice. While DEA seizures are higher than ever, so is anyone who wants to be.

The drug war has apparently worked to some degree, as both casual use and addiction have fallen in recent years. But at what cost? Now, instead of junkies, cokeheads and glue sniffers, we have coffee-addled super-achievers who'd sooner mow you down in the mall parking lot with their sport utility dreadnoughts than drop the speedometer below 70. Say what you will about drug addicts, at least they move slowly.

It's time to change our way of thinking and take the war on drugs out of the political hot button campaign topics. There is a percentage of our society that will always be addicted to something. Whether it's cocaine, pills, beer, cigarettes, or that new car smell.

Countries like Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia produce and export drugs because their only other economic alternatives do not bring in nearly enough money. That means if we really want to stem the tide of drugs from south of the border, there is only one painful but necessary course of action: We as a nation must resolve to dramatically increase our consumption of wooden donkey carvings and armadillo-shaped piñatas.

I don't know what the answer is. But I would like to ask the people of Colombia something. Between marijuana, coffee and cocaine do you think it might be possible to grow a crop that doesn't delude people into believing they actually have something interesting to say?

Drug traffickers are consummate businessmen. They have identified a demand, efficiently routed their infrastructure to fulfill it, and profited by exploiting the gap between cheap production and materials and high retail premiums. Their methodology is indistinguishable from that of a successful U.S. Corporation, except for, in this day and age, being a bit more ethical.

Every generation has had their drugs of choice. In the 60's, it was pot and LSD. In the disco era, it was coke. The 80's had crack and in the 90's we had crystal meth and Ecstasy. And nowadays? Well, now we have pot, LSD, coke, crack, crystal meth and Ecstasy.

And cocaine still plays an enormous part in our culture. Without it, stock traders could not put in 75 hour work weeks, and interstate truckers would deliver a lot more spoiled fruit. More importantly, there would be no second act segment in those E True Hollywood stories.

There are a lot of campaigns out there trying to prevent young people from getting into drugs in the first place. Unfortunately, teens tend to view these groups as uptight Puritans who haven't had fun since they outlawed witch trials. The zero-tolerance people are the same ones who tell you not to listen to hip-hop, play violent video games, and remain a virgin until after you're married. Anyone who believes that the average teenager will sit for that is on better weed than their kids.

The Anti-Drug campaigns have attacked the airwaves with images of frying eggs and terrorist bombings. Everything I need to know about drugs I learned from a poignant, 15-second PSA where the guy from "Yes Dear" pulls up a chair and sits in it, backward style. By the way, that's when you know they're leveling with you, kids. When they turn the chair around.

Hey, here's a thought, maybe you should get someone in on these campaigns who actually understands children. Kids want to be bad. You need Little Jimmy to stop smoking pot? Show him the picture of his 8th grade history teacher prancing around a Dead concert in a tie-dye loincloth. He'll never look at marijuana the same way again. Or the War of 1812, for that matter.

You can make a reasonable case that we shouldn't legalize the most deadly and addictive of the world's narcotics, but how can you possibly justify arresting elderly women smoking marijuana to ease their glaucoma, or even more desperately ill patients smoking it to ease their final days? My wish for the politicians who put their own careers ahead of the quality of life of ill and dying human beings is that some day, when they go to receive their final judgement, the first words out of God's mouth are "Dude, way harsh."

I say if you really want to discourage people from doing drugs, legalize everything for a year and encourage people to experiment. The smart people will sit back and barricade themselves in their homes, while all the drink-the-bongwater burnouts go to town, mixing industrial grade sealant and horse tranquilizers into a hookah and smoking it. I guarantee you, before the year is up, we'll dramatically thin the herd and who knows? Maybe some of the more demented stoners will mix so many weird chemicals, they'll stumble onto a cure for cancer in their pursuit of a buzz that could win the Nobel Peace Pipe.


You gotta love that guy

RD

[7doubles]

Rasta ganga, it works for the Jamacans on a relegios state!

[ReadWryt]

Wine, beer, liquers and cigars are high tech agricultural products that symbolize status and luxory

Um, you have never seen a 3000 square foot hydroponics farm comlete with Micro-composting, CO2 tanks and heat lamps strictly devised for the sole purpose of generating all female crops of Chronic Indica/Sensi hybrids...I would say THAT is High Tech, pun intended! (You can see them if you glance in the right magazines before the guy at the liquor store reminds you that he's running a business and not a library...)

[Legolam]

RD - that's a brilliant quote/piece of writing. I completely agree with almost everything it says.

I don't however agree with Gloer when he says that pot would be OK and not harmful if it was high quality. As long as you're smoking it, be it low grade cannabis resin or the highest quality hashish, you're still destroying your lungs, throat, fitness and blood vessels. In fact, it's just the same as smoking cigarettes, except without the nicotine addiction (unless you're mixing it with tobacco of course). But then, cigarettes are legal and cannabis isn't which, to my mind, is a little weird. Either legalise them both or ban them both. The actual health risks are the same.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Legolam
RD - that's a brilliant quote/piece of writing. I completely agree with almost everything it says.

I don't however agree with Gloer when he says that pot would be OK and not harmful if it was high quality. As long as you're smoking it, be it low grade cannabis resin or the highest quality hashish, you're still destroying your lungs, throat, fitness and blood vessels. In fact, it's just the same as smoking cigarettes, except without the nicotine addiction (unless you're mixing it with tobacco of course). But then, cigarettes are legal and cannabis isn't which, to my mind, is a little weird. Either legalise them both or ban them both. The actual health risks are the same. I agree with the premise of your argument Legolam but the mechanics of how people actually behave is another issue. I doubt you'll ever find anyone "chain smoking" pot like people do cigarettes; therefore, the long term health problems caused by people smoking one to two packs of cigarettes a day can't be equated to a marijuana user who smokes a joint or two after work or before bed.

That actual health effects of marijuana on the lungs, throat, fitness and blood vessels would be greatly diminished when compared with tobacco. The still basically unknown is what long term effect cannabais use will have on the brain. I doubt those effects can be any more severe than the proven effects of alcohol but I do think we need to know this little piece of information before legalization occurs.

[ReadWryt]

Ok, lets get something straight. It's totally bogus to even compare Alchohol to Pot. There are no Alchohol Receptors in the human body nor does the human body produce a chemical analogous to it, in the case of THC, the active chemical in pot, the body does indeed do so.

[Grond]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Ok, lets get something straight. It's totally bogus to even compare Alchohol to Pot. There are no Alchohol Receptors in the human body nor does the human body produce a chemical analogous to it, in the case of THC, the active chemical in pot, the body does indeed do so. I disagree RW. Alcohol has a definitive and scientifically proven action upon the human body. In the chemical sense, it absolutely destroys brain cells and is, therefore, inherently harmful to the human body; whereas the negative effects of pot would be more akin to that of tobacco but on a much smaller scale due to the lesser dosage/desired effect syndrome. (aka nicotine requires all day charging while THC has a longer life in the body.) Marijuana would cause less negative health concerns because it is typically used less frequently than tobacco and I haven't seen any scientific study that proves any negative physical/mental impact from cannabais.

[7doubles]

when i was a kid, i used to get thc pills, hash oil too. and two drops on a cigeret or one pill whould get you messed up or you could eat pot and get high. so you don't have to smoke it.

[Grond]

Originally posted by 7doubles
when i was a kid, i used to get thc pills, hash oil too. and two drops on a cigeret or one pill whould get you messed up or you could eat pot and get high. so you don't have to smoke it. Deja vu 7doubles. When I was younger... "One time... at band camp....."

[ReadWryt]

Originally posted by Grond
I disagree RW. Alcohol has a definitive and scientifically proven action upon the human body. In the chemical sense, it absolutely destroys brain cells and is, therefore, inherently harmful to the human body; whereas the negative effects of pot would be more akin to that of tobacco but on a much smaller scale due to the lesser dosage/desired effect syndrome. (aka nicotine requires all day charging while THC has a longer life in the body.) Marijuana would cause less negative health concerns because it is typically used less frequently than tobacco and I haven't seen any scientific study that proves any negative physical/mental impact from cannabais.

...so I'm waiting for the part where you dissagree...

[Grond]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


...so I'm waiting for the part where you dissagree... LOL... oops................:)

[7doubles]

i want what he's smoking?:p

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Legolam
RD - that's a brilliant quote/piece of writing. I completely agree with almost everything it says.

I don't however agree with Gloer when he says that pot would be OK and not harmful if it was high quality. As long as you're smoking it, be it low grade cannabis resin or the highest quality hashish, you're still destroying your lungs, throat, fitness and blood vessels. In fact, it's just the same as smoking cigarettes, except without the nicotine addiction (unless you're mixing it with tobacco of course). But then, cigarettes are legal and cannabis isn't which, to my mind, is a little weird. Either legalise them both or ban them both. The actual health risks are the same.

I didn't mean that high quality products mean healthier products. No. I mean that high quality is expensive and involves more work/investments.
The user must give value to the indirect effects of using the product/having it such as status and sophistication. James Bond is not drinking just any booze but "vodka martini, shaken, not stirred" or Dom Perignon instead of the regular brut. Why? Because this way he is able to show his knowledge, sophistication and that he is a "gentleman with means" . By quality I ment something that is half way symbolic and social and only partially based on the actual qualities of the material product.

High quality pot would have to be recognised generally under certain quality requirements and also under established brands. And all this should be a part of the mainstream culture. Like it is with wines. It is not just the actual quality but the socially recognised quality that matters.

[DGoeij]

Well I know there are people (even friends of mine) who can and will distinguish between a decent smoke and a bad one. And I'm talking pot here. I'm neither a wine drinker nor a pot smoker, so it would both taste like manure to me, but the user will be able to distinguish good and bad quality. I don't see why cannabis couldn't become part of western cultures happy-products.

[Rangerdave]

Although I do not partake of the "weed", I think it would be worth decriminalizing it just to see the commercials.

No Stems, No Seeds that you don't need.........
Acapulco gold is bad ass weed.
Click here for the sound (http://www.moviewavs.com/Movies/Cheech_And_Chong/chongold.wav)

RD

[ReadWryt]

Poor Jerry Garcia, he could have been the Orson Welles of his day...I mean, if Welles could do those ads for Earnest & Julio Gallo Garcia could have done something similar!:)

[7doubles]

ya he could have even done those Ben and Jerry commershals for the cherry Garcia

[Grond]

RD.... you absolutely crack me up!! :D:D:D

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Grond
RD.... you absolutely crack me up!! :D:D:D

Anybody with a hammer that big, it pays to keep him happy.

must come in real handy when those pesky encyclopedia salesman come knocking

RD

[ReadWryt]

I don't know if it's still true but back in the `70s R.J. Reynolds, Winston/Salem, The American Tobacco Company and Phillip Morris owned huge tracts of land in Columbia and Guatamala presumably for the event that Pot might be legalised some day...

[Grond]

Ahhhh... what I'd give for a lid of Guatamalan Gold right now. :);)

[Nóm]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
Its Fact that Cannabis leads to harder drugs as soon people dont get the "buzz" anymore .


Young people are starting to think drugs are ok becuase soon cocaine ect will start being debated

How much time have you spent around drug addicts/users? How many different people have you watched get addicted to drugs?
Just wondering...because I can't imagine why you'd say what you said there above.

It is a fact that cannabis leads to harder drugs for SOME people. One could also so that it is a fact that living in a bad neighborhhod will lead to hard drugs for SOME people. Thats just an example, there are other things that CAN lead to hard drugs, emotional or mental problems, or just desparation, or a need to fit in with others, or (my personal favorite) having drug addicts as parents.
I have witnessed all of the above.


There alot of young people who start using drugs knowing full well that drugs are not okay. Aside from the reason I've named above I think alot of them do it because they don't care....about life...about much of anything that they should care about. By "should" I mean what most people would consider it "normal and healthy" to care about.

I just do not think that it would be fair to say that Marijuana ALWAYS leads to other drugs...I notice that you didn't say always by the way. Some people do think that though, and it's kind of frustrating to me

[ReadWryt]

Would you believe that there are people out there smoking Crack and shooting Heroin who have never smoked pot? Conversely there are a TON of people out there who have never done any illicit drugs other then Pot...

[Ithrynluin]

I believe that is correct RW,I have seen many such people so far.
I am all for legalizing weed,because IMO it has more positive aspects than negative ones. It's hard to describe what is good about it to other people who smoke weed,let alone to those who have never tried it.
You are relaxed, you are NOT stupid like someone (foolishly) pointed out - rather you think on another level and it brings something extraordinary out of people...

[Athelas]

Compare the US yearly body count of deaths attributed to two legal drugs:

Nicotine: 400,000
Alcohol:?

Marijuana: O

[7doubles]

if canabis was leagle people whould dramaticly cut down on tobaco

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by Rangerdave
Although I do not partake of the "weed", I think it would be worth decriminalizing it just to see the commercials.

No Stems, No Seeds that you don't need.........
Acapulco gold is bad ass weed.


Funny how the mods can cuss, but everyone else gets edited.....:rolleyes:

The commercials would be funny, though. :D

Ash

[Athelas]

The war on marijuana is just a reincarnation of the temperance movement that led to alcohol prohibition, and look how successful that was; it did feed an enormous black market in bootleg booze that made organized crime rich. Makes ya think, dont it?

[Húrin Thalion]

Since there are studies that say (and studies that deny) that your brain might be damaged by using marihuana frequently I am definetly against the decriminalization. My point is, the ones for decriminalization have seen it, most likely tryed it and felt: "Hey, that wasn't dangerous at all!" But you do not know if it is dangerous for you, some people are more open to become addicted and stuck for life. You cannot know and therefore you shouldn't try.

In Sweden we have one of the worlds hardest laws on drugs (you must all think that Sweden is THE most regulated country by now since I rant about it all the time "Strict weapon laws." "Low prison sentences." "Soon no imprisonment for life." "Very strong laws against discrimination." And you believe right, we are the most regulated nation there is;)) and there is talk about decriminalization as should be. Of course strict laws do not mean that it doesn't exist, even though I am 14 there are people in my class who smokes a little now and then and takes an E sometimes. Only at parties and they are separated cases but it isn't impossible to get. So I do not think laws are the right way, rather education if that is possible

Hurin Thalion

[TheDarkTyrant]

The War on drugs is a failing one. It all boils down to the fact that it is simply 'prohibition' and as we've seen it doesn't work. Prohibition does nothing more than three things:
1- Wastes tax payers money
2- The only people to make money are the criminials
3- Innocents always get caught in the crossfire

Plain and simple, if the USA were to legalize marijuana and regulate it the result would be a crippled drug trade and serious money lost to criminals. The War on Drugs is a war that we WILL NOT WIN. We need to end the war and find a new way.

[Ice Man]

Of course not, unless you ant the next generation of people to be retarded and slow-witted, which is what happens after smoking weed for some time...

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Arcanjo
Of course not, unless you ant the next generation of people to be retarded and slow-witted, which is what happens after smoking weed for some time...

Erm, you are aware of the fact that this happens to people drinking alcohol as well? Wether you're drunk or stoned, it both results in slow-witted and retarded behaviour. However a lot of drunk people tend to beat up others, while stoned people tend to be too lazy to even get up and use to snigger a lot.
Alcohol causes brain-damage too, but you have to drink a lot over a long period to suffer serious consequenses. Comparative figures on cannabis aren't really available just yet, but it definately needs research. You could poison yourself with water, to be honest, but that would take you to drink one bath-tub after another. The long-term effects of cannabis are still unclear, but it seems to be less damaging than smoking regular tobacco, for now, that is.

[tom_bombadil]

I myself belive in full legalisation of all drugs because if we legalise all drugs we will be making homes in large citys safe from burgalars looking for money for drugs heroin addicts will have acsses to clean needles. Children who have taken say a family members drugs by mistake not knowing what they where would be taken to hospital quicker as the parents would be able not to fear the law because of their drug using. Also people who take drugs and want to give up could get help without being prosecuted. Before you ask i do not take drugs and no I never have but i strongly belive that we should legalise all drugs not only would it help the people in the nation feel safer in their homes but it would help our economy the tax we would recive on drugs would be mamoth yes addiction may go up but would we care no not really when we are safe in are homes and towns from desprate drug addicts stealing for money.

[Húrin Thalion]

Why should a legalization make it safe from burglars? You would still need much money to get "enough" and then you would have to steal to get it. And after all, why can't you supply addicts with needles without legalizing the drug since stopping them from getting needles makes it worse? They do so in many European cities, I think Germany has a program for that but I'm not sure. Well dugs tax is to trade money for people's suffering. It is not as simple as collecting the tax and walking away, by receiving the taxes the state has commited itself to protect and take care of th citizen. We would all have to pay for it in the end.

Húrin Thalion