Most liked posts in thread: Legalize Pot?

Seems quite a few counties are decriminalizing the herb.

Mark

 

Until the glaucoma sets in.

I've never smoked pot but am among those that favors decriminalization. I just can't stand to see my tax dollars going to fight pot when worse drugs can be better targeted, wish the prison system wasn't so burdened with pot-heads when people with drinking problems can induce a much worse toll on society, and see it's potential with sin tax as being a big boon to our government. Additionally, hemp has so many other uses and growing it as a legal crop in the US can be a big benefit to US industry and textiles.

 

BC Marijuana Industry Approaching Critical Mass, DEA Not Happy

Mark

 

I've ran across a lot more belligerent drunks than violent pot heads.

 

Having done my share and more when I was younger, I could not imagine it being legal, our kids are already out of it, add them being stoned all the time?Not a good idea. Plus I will say it, what's next? Allowing something just because " everyone does it" in my opinion is ridiculous, it shows weak leadership and a weak mind. Plus, I will say it again, what's next?

 

Agree with you on that, that's why I think there should be more restrictions on public drinking.

 

I think any discussion about legalizing hemp should start with how it became illegal in the first place.

 

It's not so much the "Everyone does it" argument rather the "Why was it made illegal in the first place?" It's hardly the most harmful drug out there, there are more harm done by legal ones both to the individual using and the results of their use on society. It would be legal like Alcohol, so it's not clear how it would effect the number of people doing it but given it's ease of availability, public image, and a few other factors I'd say the people attracted to smoking pot probably already do, few people are stopped because it's illegal. The main reason it was ever outlawed in the first place was because of a a combined effort by the same people who backed prohibition and the cotton industry who saw hemp production as a threat to their business. Some things there should be laws in place to protect people, but sometimes it should be just down to the individual making the choice that's best for them and fits their views, I have no desire to smoke anything, and drink very little, others are attracted to drugs for varying reasons and have varying dependencies, to outlaw something for the majority because of a minority isn't very accepted in this country, would you support an outlaw on fast-food because some people consume too much of it and have issues with it? If so, what's next?

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States]Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Mark

 

The Wiki article actually minimizes the role that Hearst played in this. Being the largest newspaper publisher of the time (no TV, no Internet) he wielded great power over public opinion. Stories of "Wild Negros Smoking the Herb, Dancing to Wild Music and Corrupting White Women" were ran liberally in his papers. Being rich and controlling the press obviously also gave him great access and control of the politicians and decision makers. He did see the lower cost and sustainability of hemp in paper production as a threat to his interests in forest and paper mill ownership.

 

A little international perspective - in 2006 the British government asked its two top drug advisers to rank drugs on their risks (physical harm, social harm and addictive risk):
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbituates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines (e.g. Vallium)
8. Amphetamines
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl Nitrites (poppers)
20. Khat

UK newspaper report on study

Perhaps not too surprisingly these results were completely ignored by government - indeed Cannabis had been downgraded to class C (much lower legal penalties) but was upgraded back to B shortly after this report!

You can imagine there was a big uproar from the public about how these supposed experts could foolishly rate alcohol so highly, when their own alcohol consumption was so harmless....

How come the failure of alcohol prohibition in the 1930s now seems so laughable, but the identical situation today with drug prohibition doesn't?

Andrew

 

I'm surprised by the Ecstasy location. Less risky than steroids? Really?

 

Eh...

Ecstasy = loud incomprehensible music, some sex
Steroids = roid rage, liver problems, testicle reduction, guidos (Jersey Shore).

I can see where they are coming from.

 

I am wholeheartedly in favor of legalizing it, and at a minimum at least for medical reasons. I live in a state that has legalized it for medical reasons. All you need is a doctors script and you can grow your own or buy it from a "legit" grower.

The great stumbling block we have is the lack of a definitive test to determine if we are under the influence of cannabis. Sure we can test for the residue in our systems, but no way to declare if we are under the influence. As with most, if not all, jobs nowadays having a zero tolerance policy in regards to drugs/alcohol there needs to be some way of determining if someone is under the influence.

So if you want to be the next billionaire, develop this test. Cause I want my dope ! !

 

hahah yah, but all that techno music comes along with holes in your brain and a propensity to die of dehydration.

Guidos are a double threat. They come equipped with the testicular reduction AND incomprehensible music.

 

Set a bowl of munchies out, and see who heads straight for it

Mark

 

Well I think........................I forgot what I was going to say.

 

i think marijuana should be treated the way alcohol is treated.
there has to be an age minimum, just like alcohol (21)
you need proof of ID, as does everything.
and specifically for MJ, only a certain amount can be purchased at any given time.

i saw a documentary called "In Pot We Trust"
and i must say, very well written documentary.
it covers in high detail both ends of the 'legalize pot' controversy.
you guys should go watch it.

 

and for the record, i am for legalizing marijuana, for medicinal and even for commercial usage.

reasons for medicinal:
it really does help people with severe pain (from their disease or illness) to feel better. in that documentary i mentioned above, there are many people who have chronic pain from diseases such as cerebral polsy where any kind of legal drug from a pharmacy or prescription specific drug has not eased the pain, where as marijuana is the only substance that has. so if marijuana eases pain and makes people feel a whole lot better physically and mentally, then im all for legalizing it. like i also said, there should be a purchasing limit for each individual control.

reasons for commercial:
it makes people happy, makes people laugh, and makes people feel good. its personal choice to smoke it/eat it, and if people like it then go for it. to me its about how you can control yourself ie. willpower. i always hear incidents of drunk people becoming violent and alcohol poisoning and drunk people causing a lot of trouble and do all sorts of crazy things, but when people are stoned they tend to just wanna chill out, be lazy, eat, and just be happy with everyone else.

 

I was going to post that it's legal to grow/posess pot in the US if you have a tax stamp. The USG won't issue any however :lol: