Considering other drugs such as alchohol and cigarettes, which have shown to be more addictive and harmful than marijuana, why should marijuana remain illegal?
Note: I am not formally educated in any aspect of medical biology. Therefore, I will say right now that my opening post could be very wrong, and hopefully the medical professionals on this forum will correct it. This is, however, the understanding I have gleaned from my research.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
People are just going to say to illegalize alchohol and cigarettes, too.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:why should marijuana remain illegal?
It shouldn't.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I seem to recall some study done as part of research on "medical marijuana" to see if it caused more harm than it would be helping. The doctor's concluded something along the lines the only serious health issues it posed were due to smoking it, lung issues, etc. If it was ingested it would meet the requirements for prescription drugs, and possibly even over-the-counter drugs.
This was several years ago, so I'm going off memory and don't have a link. Sorry.
--Enigmatic (doesn't smoke)
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm totally in favor of legalization, though I myself do not take it. I won't bore you guys with the usual arguments why.
Everything you've heard other advocates say, that's what I'm saying.
Make it legal.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, I lean toward the legalizing camp, but tell me if any of the following impression is incorrect (since I have never done marijuana). I am under the impression, from popular culture at least, that while marijuana is less addictive or harmful than legal drugs, it impairs you more while you are high, and it takes far less "quantity" (insofar as this is a meaningful term when comparing something smoked to something drunk) to reach that level of impairment. Since impaired people are wont to do dangerous things, this might be an argument against legalizing marijuana.
-o-
When the doctors check in, I would be curious to know more about medical marijuana. I have heard great claims about its effectiveness in dealing with glaucoma and the symptoms of AIDS, but I have read other sources saying that these are lies. Who is right?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Man, Popular Science has a really good article about drugs derived from marijuana in the August issue. But I can't find mine!
Foiled again!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree it should be legal, even though I've never used it and don't have a particular desire to use it.
I think if most people knew how many highschoolers actually smoke pot, they would be shocked. And then in college it just gets worse. I have no data to support this, only my own experiences. It's too far gone for anything reasonable to stop it.
I believe the societal price of the war on pot is far higher than the societal price of legalizing marijuana.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
First off, I am for legalization (and taxation) of this reletively harmless substance.
However, when I used, long ago, I had more respiratory problems. I am asthmatic, aggravated by allergies. When I stopped smoking I noticed a marked improvement in respiration, over the course of months. So, I continued by cutting out my "weekend smoking" as well a year or so later.
It's like night and day. I have no doubt of the problems caused by the act of smoking. For me, that seems to be pot's downfall.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I think if most people knew how many highschoolers actually smoke pot, they would be shocked. And then in college it just gets worse. I have no data to support this, only my own experiences. It's too far gone for anything reasonable to stop it.
You know, I don't find the fact that a lot of people do something to be a compelling argument in favor of its legalization.
Can you elaborate on what you believe to be the societal price of the War on Marijuana? Is there in fact a "War on Marijuana" or is it the whole War on Drugs you are commenting on? How do you feel about marijuana use being legalized but not other drug use? Would the War on Drugs have a lower "price" if this were to happen?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Okay, I think you guys are confusing the facts.
First off, marijuana is only illegal in it's smoked form. Which should remain illegal.
However, the FDA is currentlyconducting research on medications derived from marijuana that have less of a negative impact than morphine while doing more pain-control.
I need to do more research on the subject. So don't go forming a cult over what you've read here so far.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:reletively harmless substance.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
scottneb, could you elaborate on the meaning of ? Do you disagree with those who say cigarettes and alcohol, which are legal, are more harmful?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"First off, marijuana is only illegal in it's smoked form."
What? You mean, brownies are legal? I think not. Elaborate, please.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
OK, weird, Ic, that we both said "elaborate" simultaneously.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It must be a teacher thing.
You wanna go out on a date?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Relatively. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
[quote="Daniel Brookoff, M.D., Ph.D." ]A class of drugs derived from marijuana called the cannabinoids has also been shown to have some anti-nausea effects, but this activity is no greater than that of third-choice drugs. Cannabinoids also cause more side effects than the other anti-nausea drugs (sedation, dizziness, low blood pressure, and an unpleasant sensation called dysphoria). A purified form of the cannabinoid Delta-9 THC has been available on the American market for eight years under the brand name Marinol. Despite its availability it has found limited use, because it generally doesn't work. If you look at the advertisements for Marinol placed in the medical journals by its manufacturer (Roxane Laboratories), it is touted as "more effective than Compazine," which is a third-choice medication for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting[/quote]
Man! I can never do quotes right! Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I'm not completely up on the subject. It verywell could be legal in other forms. It was just a good arguement to grab attention while I pulled some research. :wink:
eslaine, show me some good research showing marijuana isn't harmful and I'll believe you.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:marijuana is only illegal in it's smoked form.
Why do you think that?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Look up, Tante. It was a grabber.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I didn't say it's not harmful. I'm saying alchohol is worse, from what I've observed.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Icarus, a date for sure! (although Punwit has not yet responded, and I do have a date with Ela and Megan, but the more the merrier!)
Ok, Scott. Lots of people ingest illegal, smokable marijuana, that is what I was trying to distinguish.
I know a lot of people who smoke, who use it as an antidepressant. They may not admit this, but their spouses do!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I interpreted his use of the word "relatively" to mean specifically by comparison to other drugs that were legal. And I don't feel like getting all Googly, but I thought it was a relatively accepted truism that cigarettes, in particular were more harmful.
-o-
Or could this be that they are only more harmful because people who smoke cigarettes smoke them in great quantities, while people who smoke marijuana (or cigars) smoke muh more infrequently?
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I used to be on the anti-legalization side of things up until about a year ago. Not really a reason as to why I changed my mind about it, I guess I just thought about it some more and came to a different conclusion.
I'd reluctantly say it should be legal but I still have my doubts as to the after-effects it may bring.
The main thing on my mind about these sorts of issues is where to draw the line. I mean people are already using the whole "Well, cigarettes and alcohol are legal so why not marijuana?"
Not to say it's a bad argument, I'm simply thinking about the ramifications of that sort of thinking. "Well, marijuana, cigarettes, and alcohol are legal, why not [insert new substance here]?"
Not very appealing to me.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Hey, I'm not going back to choking. But, smoking effects aside, THC is produced by your own body.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:but I thought it was a relatively accepted truism that cigarettes, in particular were more harmful.
Here's a site that contradict you there Icky. But of course I'm doing my research on the fly. (Google)
edit: fixed the link.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yes, Ic. The danger of smoking marijuana is in the smoking, mostly. It is not pysically addictive, like nicotine or alcohol, but it is psychologically adictive. The question then becomes, well, isn't an addiction an addiction? THC stays in the sytem fo a while, I think three months. Basically, it is not that i would promote marijuana use, just put it up there against alcohol and say: it really isn't as bad as alcohol, so either legalize marijuana or illegalize alcohol.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
(linky no worky) Thanks Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
On the other hand, Liz, I can have a drink without getting high. Can you say the same about a joint?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Be assured, I have absolutely no problem with an approved drug derived from marijuana. I hit the wall when we start talking about a sweeping legalization of smoked pot.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Yeah, tar, etc. But think of the additives to tobacco that are thrown in to make it burn evenly and deliver that highly addictive drug nicotine.
Having kicked both, THC was a breeze compared to the ten ton weight of nicotine.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Well, no, Ic, one could not say that. However, impairment is impairment. I could have one drink at a restaurant and be fine. I could have three martinis and not be fine. If marijuana were legalized, it would have to be assumed that a person did not leave their home or another person's home, if they were impaired.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
The arguement here is pot. Not cigarettes.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
You asked why I thought it was relatively harmless. I'm not really making an issue here.
Wanna' go ride bikes?
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
You would also have to determine what TYPE of marijuana was legal and illegal. If we legalize marijuana with x amount of THC, will people still illegally buy the high grade forms of it? Should we legalize all forms not matter how potent? Where is the line?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Is that different from different potencies of alcohol?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Wanna' go ride bikes?
I left mine at home. Can I ride on your pegs?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:You know, I don't find the fact that a lot of people do something to be a compelling argument in favor of its legalization.
When the goal of prohibition is to stop the substance from being used, and that goal is not being met at all, I don't see why you'd keep using the same method.
quote: Can you elaborate on what you believe to be the societal price of the War on Marijuana? Is there in fact a "War on Marijuana" or is it the whole War on Drugs you are commenting on? How do you feel about marijuana use being legalized but not other drug use? Would the War on Drugs have a lower "price" if this were to happen?
I'm sure none of these arguments are new, but here I go anyways:
I suppose I believe that the "War on Marijuana" is one aspect of the War on Drugs. I think the societal cost has many factors. One is the actual monetary costs. In 2003, the US Government spent 19 billion on the War on Drugs. State and local governments spent even more. It's hard to estimate exactly how much of that was specifically for marijuana. However, marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the county, so it seems reasonable that it was a lot of it. Given the fact that if it was legalized it could be taxed, prohibition is costing the US billions of dollars every year.
Another big problem I have is the amount of police resources that are devoted to stopping pot. I know my police station has a drug division (don't know the actual title). In high school, my goverment class actually had a police officer tell us that he believed in legalization of pot and listed how many police resources it used up. I wish I'd kept my notes from that.
How do I feel about all drugs? Personally, I don't care if somebody wants to shoot up on heroine or snort cocaine. It doesn't hurt me. But I don't expect to ever convince prohibitionists of that.
I don't understand why an activity that harms no one but yourself should be illegal. People may claim that pot inherently creates damage to their families and society, etc. I don't believe this. I know SO many people who smoke pot and live completely productive lives. Admittedly, they're not usually that ambitious, but they're still contributing members of society.
One legitimate fear in my mind is that there would be more car accidents from it. While driving intoxicated would clearly be illegal, it would still happen. But people, even innocent people, die in the drug trade. So it's trading one con for another.
If marijuana were legalized, yes, more people would use it. Do I think that's so horrible? No, not really.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: I left mine at home. Can I ride on your pegs?
Sure, but if a cop comes along, jump off the back real quick!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
scottneb, I think that Marinol is only one of the substances in marijuana. When you do find that Popular Science article, check out what they say about Sativex. Apparently it contains all of the compounds in marijuana. I'll be interested to see whether this is more effective than Marinol.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Wanna' go ride bikes?
Don't you think bikes kill more people than pot? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:In 2003, the US Government spent 19 billion on the War on Drugs. State and local governments spent even more. It's hard to estimate exactly how much of that was specifically for marijuana. However, marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the county, so it seems reasonable that it was a lot of it.
Actually, I don't think this necessarily follows.
I'm seeing more anti-pot commercials these days, but when I was in high school, the main focus of the anti-drug education/posters/propaganda I saw seemed to be cocaine.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Yeah, I just skimmed through it. Man, this is the second time there was a relevant story in PopSci that I couldn't get to. I feel so helpless.
*dons helmet, elbow pads, knee pads, wrist guards, boots, shoulder pads, reflective vest, goggles, and affixes a freakishly tall orange flag to the back of eslaine's bike*
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Alright!
Goes with my banana seat! w00t!
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
We totally killed the thread.
Sweet!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I'm seeing more anti-pot commercials these days, but when I was in high school, the main focus of the anti-drug education/posters/propaganda I saw seemed to be cocaine.
When did you go to high school? During my education (class of 2003), the emphasis was definately on pot.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I graduated in 1989.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
From what I understand, studies have shown that marijuana is not chemically addictive -- caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol (for instance) are. It is mentally addictive. This means that you want it because you enjoy it, and not because your body physically cannot operate properly without it. This is the same type of addiction as is found in people who are 'addicted' to running or working out, for example.
Is this incorrect?
I would suggest sweeping legalization, but with the same laws applied as are applied to alcohol and cigarettes: don't do them in non-smoking areas, and you are responsible for what you do while you're under the influence.
quote:On the other hand, Liz, I can have a drink without getting high. Can you say the same about a joint?
I've never personally done it, but my friends who do never get high off of one bowl. One bowl is just relaxing, it takes two or three for them to get high.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
You're partly right HRE. You are correct in saying that working-out and working can be addictive. You're wrong in that it is in fact "chemically" addictive. Even if a substance isn't addictive by it's own chemical structure, your body will still develope a chemical dependance on it. Endorphines are a good for instance to prove this.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
It is interesting that a nation who imprisons millions, kills thousands and finances trillions in the drug war would elect a president who used illegal drugs for over a decade.
If the war on drugs is REALLY likened to the war on Terror, would we elect a president who was in al-queda for a decade?
No.
As a nation we have a habit of talking out both sides of our ass.
mariuana is less harmful and altering than alcohol, but alcohol is rules free.
Funny how Cigarettes Corporations are the leading contributors to our politicians, and cigarette are much more physically harmful than marijuana.
no, wait, it is not funny.
it's America.
A corporate, christian, capitalistic, democracy.
Did Jesus say it's illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did George Washington say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did Abraham Lincoln say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Marijuana was made illegal entirely by a group of white men, in a time the black man couldn't vote.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Did Jesus say it's illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did George Washington say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did Abraham Lincoln say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
But, during the time of Washington and Lincoln, Cocaine was regularly used in whatever form a person could fit it in. It was even used as a pain-reliever for teething babies. Using your logic Cocaine should be legal too.
I'm not going to go into your white vs. black comment. I've obviously got some things to learn about that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
scottneb, I think HRE was saying that working and working out were not chemically addictive, only psychologically so.
I understand alcohol can be chemically addictive for people who get to the seriously toxic state, where attempting to detox on their own can be fatal. But is alcohol chemically addictive in the more moderate levels in which it is consumed by most people? I would find this surprising, if so.
Thor, I don't know that I can agree with the claims that marijuana is less damaging or altering than alcohol. Everybody who claims this always compares to rather extreme alcohol abuse. Moderately low use of alcohol seems much more benign and less "altering" than moderately low use of marijuana, from everything I've read. Heck, moderately low quantities of alcohol, notably red wine, have repeatedly been found to be good for you. I'm not aware of marijuana being actively good for you except insofar as it reduces pain for people who already have serious illnesses or painful conditions. (And if we're going to compare only extreme abuses like alcoholism--and comparing full-blown alcoholism to recreational pot use, as most who make this comparison seem to, is a bit disengenious, no?--then you can argue that pot is less dangerous than sugar, because extreme indulgence in sugar is certainly more harmful than smoking a joint or two a week. (eek! Diagram THAT sentence!)
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I didn't know when to breath!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I agree with Icarus that it's hard to compare quantity of usage and impairment. How much does an average drinker drink? How much does an average pot smoker smoke? No idea.
However, drinking alcohol is legal for adults regardless of the quantity of alcohol consumed. I think quantity is up to an individual's responsibility to manage in either case, ie are you using whichever recreationally or do you have a major habit? My basic opinion on legalization for most drugs (without getting into very lengthy details) is if its something that can be used in the home without harming other people, there shouldn't be a law against it. Sell it with warning labels so people know what they're getting into.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Well part of what society is about is protecting you from bad decisions others might make.
I'm really only playing Devil's advocate here but consider this: Do you really think more mentally impaired people (from use of drugs or alcohol) is what you need out there?
Everyone takes into account the cases where the drugs are used by level-headed, responsible people who know better than to go out driving while drunk/high, but how many people account for the people who abuse the subtances?
I agree that people should be free to do as they want with their body, however, I think it's a little naive to think that these same people won't ever affect others with their actions. If this were true there wouldn't be people killed or maimed in drunk driving accidents because everyone would know better than to drive under the influence.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
So, is it the common consensus that it should be a medicinal thing and not a recreational thing?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't see that consensus. I see a lot of people saying that you should be able to do it in your own home without hurting anybody.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Well part of what society is about is protecting you from bad decisions others might make.
I'm really only playing Devil's advocate here but consider this: Do you really think more mentally impaired people (from use of drugs or alcohol) is what you need out there?
Everyone takes into account the cases where the drugs are used by level-headed, responsible people who know better than to go out driving while drunk/high, but how many people account for the people who abuse the subtances?
I agree that people should be free to do as they want with their body, however, I think it's a little naive to think that these same people won't ever affect others with their actions. If this were true there wouldn't be people killed or maimed in drunk driving accidents because everyone would know better than to drive under the influence.
But if we follow what you're saying Rico, then not only should alcohol be illegal, but also everything that people do that "may" be harmful to themselves or others if abused. Heck TV and internet should be outlawed by that logic, because there are those that abuse those things in abundance and that's not healthy. Driving any sort of motor vehicle would also have to be illegal.
quote:On the other hand, Liz, I can have a drink without getting high. Can you say the same about a joint?
Ic, HRE already sort of addressed this, but I'll have a crack anyway. If you can only have one drink, why can't a smoker only have half a joint? or 1/4 of a joint? or just a few puffs? And the same way you have one drink because you enjoy it and to relax a bit, someone can smoke less than a joint just to relax. People don't smoke cigarettes to get high, but for whatever reason that cigarette break makes them feel better.
And the same way you can have too much drink, someone else can have too much to smoke. It's all about personal responsibility. Though, to be fair, it's a lot easier to smoke too much than it is to drink too much, given the nature of how the different drugs are taken. Similar to how you can get more drunk doing shots rather than drinking beers.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
What's the point in using a drug (no matter what it is) to calm yourself down? Especially if you're considered healthy.
:hits the sack:
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally I've never tried marijuana, and probably never will, regardless of it's legality.
But I do think it should be legalized, for many reasons.
There's your average taxation, hurt the drug lords argument, which I think is very valid, and is half my reason for wanting it legalized.
But moreoever it comes down to personal responsibility. If we trust people with alcohol and cigarettes, they can be trusted with marijuana. Make the punishment for doing certain acts (driving, operating heavy machinery, whatever) extremely harsh, and I think that will deter most people.
I also think, to a certain degree, that the number of people who use marijuana for recreational use will not go up that much if it were legalized. It's ridiculously easy to get illegal marijuana, everyone who wants some can already get it. Legalizing it won't change that so much. It might even lower deaths. Buying it from a regulated vendor will eliminate the risk of it being laced with a more deadly drug. Quality control saves lives.
The benefits of legalization to me outweigh the opposing arguments of keeping it illegal. I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, but I do find them incredibly destructive. So long as no one smokes around me, they are free to poison themselves with it all they want. They have the right to choose.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:What's the point in using a drug (no matter what it is) to calm yourself down?
I think there's a difference between relaxing and calming down. But maybe that's just me. Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: But if we follow what you're saying Rico, then not only should alcohol be illegal, but also everything that people do that "may" be harmful to themselves or others if abused. Heck TV and internet should be outlawed by that logic, because there are those that abuse those things in abundance and that's not healthy. Driving any sort of motor vehicle would also have to be illegal.
Well I know it usually boils down to this sort of thing which I was trying to avoid but when you deal with extremes there's always an opposite to match it. Why isn't everything legal then? Why have society control anything at all?
My point was that while I agree that marijuana should be legalized I think it could add to the problems that already afflict our society. I see it as a faucet of sorts, right now it's about halfway open and the water's pouring out but legalizing more and more physically/mentally impairing drugs will surely increase the amount of "water" being let out of the faucet.
I think it should be legalized but not for the reasons you list. The whole "Alcohol is just as bad and that's legal so therefore drugs should be legal too" just doesn't strike me as the right argument to make when dealing with potentially dangerous substances (note I say potentially, I know that they can be used in moderation and am not against that at all).
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I graduated in 1989.
Perhaps the popularity of marijuana has increased in the past 14 years. Or perhaps it is just my area.
quote: Why have society control anything at all?
I don't think that quote completely applies. If you change it to "Why have society control anything regarding consensual adults' behavior that doesn't hurt others?", then I'd say I have no idea. Sounds ludicrous to me.
I don't understand what the water symbolizes in your analogy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the water symbolizes the amount of trouble caused by people's decisions regarding potentially harmful things. Cigarette use and alcohol are potentially dangerous, but more so than something like cars, or knives, or whatever.
Many things that are controlled now that are made illegal are because they are more inherently harmful than say, a fountain pen or a pillowcase. Both of which can be deadly, if used wrongly.
Legalizing weed just means the chances for more destruction go up, putting more potential danger out there, and thereby increasing the amount of water, or potential danger, out there.
Is that close to what you meant Rico?
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Sorry I guess I'm not very good at coming up with analogies at 2 AM I guess that sort of came to mind since I was thirsty and wanted some water.
I was sort of aiming to imply that by adding yet another substance to control might mean increased usage and with increased usage there comes increased fools who go out driving while they're high/drunk.
I think I might butt out of this thread for a while now though, I didn't want to get too involved in the first place because I've had this discussion way too many times
You guys go on though, have a fun!
Edit: Yup Lyrhawn you got it Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
For SOME people:
Small amounts of marijuana, not enough to get high, help with:
(Why is this a better alternative to a handful of anti-depressants and other pills? Fewer side effects and the ability to continue functioning. I'm talking about serious problems, not depressed soccor moms. Have you ever seen someone get mental "treatment" and come out with handfuls of pills to take everyday and be more crazy than when they went in? The cure is worse than the disease.)
For SOME people, Marijuana:
Becomes all they ever do. Lessens productivity. Makes them stupid. Makes them depressed.
---
Many drug treatments for pain, depression, and other ailments have differing effects on different people. If you have ADD, Ritalin will help you concentrate and calm down. If you don't have ADD, Ritalin affects you like speed.
Legalize it--but regulate it. The quality goes UP, and the control of who gets it goes UP. (Quality is important because impure substances are risky.) Educate people on its real effects--not on government propoganda. Some people shouldn't use it. Some people should.
People who would drive high are already driving high or drunk. If they have so little respect for our driving laws and safety, what makes you think they're respecting the drug laws?
Some people like to get drunk. Some people like to get high. Let them stay home and do that. The drunks won't lose their job after a drug test. The others will, even though they are not impaired on the job. How is that fair?
Too many people are in prisons for smoking.
Too much money is spent fighting this "problem," and with little effect.
-Katarain
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I once heard a police officer at our university tell us that the only reason pot was illegal was because there were no immediate tests to see if it was in the system.
His contention was as follows: “If driver, pilot, doctor or anyone else is drunk/impaired, you can pull them over and give them a breathalyser test. The immediate result can be used to intervene and stop them from putting themselves/others at risk.
Altho pot is probably less harmful then alcohol, every test we have takes hours to give and get results. Urine tests take too long to be processed to stop potentially dangerous behavior. If a method comes out that lets cops immediately test for pot in the system, you will see it made legal.”
I don't know if that is true, but it was the first time I heard that argument. It seemed to make sense to me.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Altho pot is probably less harmful then alcohol,
Why does this keep popping up? I've never heard this arguement before this thread. I'm really interested in seeing some research that actually says this.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I do know from experience that with AIDS patients that pot is smoked to gain an appetite. Many of the drug cocktails used to treat advanced stages of AIDS cause nausea and/or lack of appetite. In order to get nutrients, the patients have to eat. Pot helps them. Now, this information I got firsthand from a few focus groups, so that's all the basis I have.
But listening to someone who's stick thin and saying that it was her last resort and it's how she can even eat, you start to wonder about the role of marijuana.
I'm not in either camp. I just wanted to share that experience I had.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Now, to throw in something on the other side from what I've been mostly arguing.
A friend of mine went through a few years of doing a lot of drugs. Pretty much everything under the sun. I was talking to him once after he'd quit everything except pot and cigarettes and mentioned something about legalization. He, a frequent marijuana user, did NOT want it legalized.
His reasoning went something like this: "Right now I have a dealer that I trust and he gets me good stuff from 2 or 3 growers he personally knows. If it's legalized sellers are going to need licenses and stuff just like cigarettes, big business is going to take over and they'll put additives in it to make their brand more popular and probably more addictive. I don't want tobacco companies taking over marijuana."
I thought that was interesting. And of course, he still smoked tobacco too. I think he was more interested in quitting that habit than the pot.
Scott: the "pot's not as bad as alcohol" is an old arguement that I'm surprised you haven't heard before (unless you haven't talked to anyone else who's pro-legalization). I don't have any sort of research to point to, but I agree with it based on my own extensive experience of being around people who are really drunk and around people who are really high. I can't make a long term health comparison, but in terms of impairment and likelihood of doing something stupid or dangerous under the influence, I think alcohol is worse.
--Enigmatic
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
The problem is that Americans think that if it is "legal" than it is "condoned" by the state. I am in favor of the legalization of ALL victimless crimes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
"It's not a habit, it's cool. I feel alive. If you don't have it, you're on the other side. I'm not an addict. Maybe, that's a lie."
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Actually, marijuana is illegal whether smoked or not. It's illegal to possess, not just to use.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was under the impression it was only illegal to possess, but not illegal to use. Technically... although I'm not sure how you'd use without possessing.
-Katarain
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Good point!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)