quote:State laws banning pot, however, still apply in Denver.
And illegal at the state level, apparently. I don't understand why they would waste their time voting on this.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's supposedly legal here in Cali too, with a doctor's perscription, but it's still illegal according to the government, which really makes voting to leagalize it dumb, IMHO.
I don't ever think it will be legal on a fedral level, IMHO.
Posts: 113 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how legalising marijuana is a bad thing. People DO have the choice whether to use it or not. And you'd take all that profit out of organized crime if you just legalised all drugs. The governement could simply ut a high tax on profits from the sales of it, though not too high as to evoke illegal dealings. I personally wold never try it, never have, and I think if you gave people the choice whether to use it the usage would actually go down.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't ever think it will be legal on a fedral level, IMHO.
Given the recent trend in the low prioritization of marijuana law enforcement (for possession), the increasingly lax attitudes about usage, and the international example set in following these same trends, I'd say marijuana is WELL on its way to being legalized.
Then again, given that it's the largest and by far most profitable crop produced in the United States, the legalization might very well kill our already declining economy.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's supposedly legal here in Cali too, with a doctor's perscription, but it's still illegal according to the government, which really makes voting to leagalize it dumb, IMHO.
There's no supposedly involved - I have one friend with a prescription for it, and two with a license to dispense it.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My cousin had a script for it too, and was arrested and charged with possession.
My uncle is also a cop and when we discussed it because I have asthma, he told me that it is still illegal according to Federal Law and that he would not tolerate it under his roof.
Posts: 113 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My cousin had a script for it too, and was arrested and charged with possession.
Does the law vary city to city or county to county?
quote:My uncle is also a cop and when we discussed it because I have asthma, he told me that it is still illegal according to Federal Law and that he would not tolerate it under his roof.
That sounds more like a matter of principle & personal ethic than a matter of law, but I suppose I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I live in S. Cali. It is on the books that it is legal here, but because it is not legal on a National Level, the National Level is enforced.
There are areas of the US where possession of pot for any reason is illegal.
And seeing that I am more or less a guest in my uncle's house, it's his rules that fly or I can move.
Posts: 113 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well I live in S. Cali. It is on the books that it is legal here, but because it is not legal on a National Level, the National Level is enforced.
Where in S. Cali? All three of the friends I mentioned live in Los Angeles, and none of them have gotten in legal trouble. The one with the prescription gets his marijuana from area hospital pharmacies. I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that law enforcement would allow the writing/obtaining of prescriptions, possession & dispensation by hospitals, but still arrest people that have prescriptions for possession.
quote:And seeing that I am more or less a guest in my uncle's house, it's his rules that fly or I can move.
I wasn't suggesting that you should debate the use of marijuana with him in his own house, since it's his house whether it's legal or not. I was curious as to whether his aversion to use in his household stemmed from it being illegal, or out of principle / moral preference.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rusta-burger: I don't see how legalising marijuana is a bad thing. People DO have the choice whether to use it or not. And you'd take all that profit out of organized crime if you just legalised all drugs. The governement could simply ut a high tax on profits from the sales of it, though not too high as to evoke illegal dealings. I personally wold never try it, never have, and I think if you gave people the choice whether to use it the usage would actually go down.
Here is how it is a bad thing:
In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.
Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.
The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs.
Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion ofmarijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity,pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it was decriminalized in Denver, not legalized. This means that it is no longer against the law to use or posess it according to city law. As other posters have said, it is still against federal law.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that law enforcement would allow the writing/obtaining of prescriptions, possession & dispensation by hospitals, but still arrest people that have prescriptions for possession.
quote:The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.
"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.
At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."
The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.
posted
My point is people would have a choice. Governemnts could tax people selling it and any advertisements for it would be to explain the danger of it, like cigarette ads. This would take the profit away from the underworld. Making it illegal has never stopped people from trying it. They get addicted and where can they turn to get help if they want it.
Nowhere! the same thing works with alcohol and alcoholics anonymous, and between doctors and smokers. More people give up these drugs than take it up because they have the option of getting help to do so if they want. But they can't do that with an illegal drug. Prohibition did nothing to deter people from wanting alcohol.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases.
This would be the case if the only way of taking marijuana were to smoke it, certainly, but it's not.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to ask that, but kmbboots beat me to it. Just because it can have negative effects doesn't automatically mean it should be illegal. Alcohol and tobacco are legal but taxed, and they've both been shown to have a possibility of severe consequences.
posted
It's obvious that if it's bad for you, it should be illegal. The problem, I think, is that you all are considering yourselves adults. We're not adults! We're children and the government is mommy and daddy. They only want the best for us, and they care about us. Okay?
So stop whining. It's obvious that the solution is to make cigarettes and alcohol illegal, too.
Somebody's gotta take care of us!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then again, given that it's the largest and by far most profitable crop produced in the United States, the legalization might very well kill our already declining economy
I'm no economist, but it seems to me that would make legalizing good for the economy. New tax dollars to spend, instead of spending them on "enforcement".
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. Those are legal 2. You don't smoke alcohol 3. Pot contains 4 times more the carcinogens than cigarettes 4. Do we really need to have another legalized substance for people to get screwed up on?
I always love the lets legalize it theory. Let's take a look at the countries with legalized drugs and free needle programs and there is evidence enough of why these things should not be legalized.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. So your argument of why marijuana should be illegal when cigarettes and alcohol are just as bad or worse, is because it's already illegal. Great logic.
2. ??? And your point is?? It still has a bad physical affect!
3. You don't smoke nearly as much as cigarettes. People have 1-2 pack-a-day, after all!
4. Define "screwed up."
Again, all of your arguments fall back on saving people for their own good. Using your reasoning, we should also ban cheese, cream, and butter. Nothing but fat, after all.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, because your name is Dr. Evil, that automatically makes whatever point of view you put up evil, so why even bother?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
So you're arguing, at least in part, that marijuana should be illegal because...it's illegal?
quote:2. You don't smoke alcohol
Nor do you have to smoke pot.
quote:3. Pot contains 4 times more the carcinogens than cigarettes
Pot smoke is full of carcinogens. The plant itself isn't. If ingested rather than smoked, the carcinogen problem is avoided.
quote:4. Do we really need to have another legalized substance for people to get screwed up on?
What impact do you think that it will have on society if another legalized substance for people to get screwed up on is available?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(note: I am undecided on this issue. This is not a challenge question. I'm just curious, please don't jump on me...)
Those of you who are for legalizing marijuana- Where should the line be drawn in terms of other illegal drugs? Or should there be a line at all?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about drugs but who would buy other products by a compant that aims to make profits off the worst drugs out there. Oh wait, don't cigarette comapanies make patches to help you quit smoking?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really know. I think a much better case can be made for keeping harder drugs illegal--such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. But a case can be made for legalization of those substances as well, based on other factors. I can't list them, because it's not something I argue for.
I think it would be satisfactory for marijuana to be legal, and those other substances to be illegal. There are a lot of major differences between marijuana and harder drugs--in the effect on the user and of the user's effect on society. But I wouldn't fight legalization of them all, unless sufficiently convinced that I should.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several cigarrette companies are parts of extremely large product empires. However, I don't know how what you're saying is relevant at all, Rusta.
quote: There are a lot of major differences between marijuana and harder drugs--in the effect on the user and of the user's effect on society.
yeah, that's what I think. But where does the line go? I guess I feel that at some level, you can do whatever you want to yourself--as long as it is ONLY to yourself. Well, how do you determine when the damage starts being done to someone else? Secondhand smoke kills. Yet smoke is allowed to drift into public air, because how exactly can you stop it from doing so? Alcohol is the main factor in a whole lot of accidents. Yet .08% BAC is still okay, even though sharing the road with someone with thier reactions and judgements impaired even just that much will STILL increase the chances of getting into an accident.
Then there's the cost to society... medical care... fixing property damage...
I don't know. I strongly condemn drug use beyond reasonable (ie medically beneficial) consumption of caffeine and alcohol, but I respect the right to do whatever you want *to yourself*. I'd be completely in favor of legalization of whatever drugs as long as there were sufficient restrictions so as to ensure others' safety.
That was a lot to write for what basically boils down to . Oh well.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the answer to all lifes problems is to throw rocks at people you disagree with. Short of that, just stop disagreeing with people.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My uncle is also a cop and when we discussed it because I have asthma
i'm sure there's a perfectly justifiable reason why an asthma user would want to smoke pot, but man, just the first thought of that sent me into hysterics. You want to inhale fairly harsh, strong smoke in order to breath more fluidly? Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Leah, I haven't yet made up my mind about drug legalization. I lean toward it with regard to pot, simply because it doesn't seem to be to be any more dangerous than already legal drugs are. I have many of the same qualms as you do on the entire subject.
I'm curious--why do you draw the line where you do with regard to alcohol and caffeine use? Does that mean that you look down on any recreational use of any drug?
I don't enjoy being drunk, myself, but I certainly don't look down on people who enjoy getting potted every now and then. I do actively enjoy the effects of caffeine, and if there is a medicinally useful amount of caffeine that a person can ingest, I suspect that the amount that I like to ingest is larger than that. I don't take so much that I feel jumpy. Do you see a problem with the type of caffeine use that I'm describing? If so, why?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Decriminalizing marijuana in the city of Denver means that if you are pulled over by a city police officer or sherriff, you can have a big bag of pot on your lap and he won't do anything about it. But if you get pulled by a state trooper, you're screwed.
As for why I think marijuana shouldn't be legal, let's just say I think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal as well. The main reason they aren't is that they have been apsorbed into our culture since it's creation. The early American economy was based heavilly on exportation of alcohol and tobacco.
Don't tell me marijuana isn't bad for you. It is, it's been studied, tested, and proven. Don't argue with me over which is worse, cigarettes or marijuana, I think humanity could do without both. Don't even tell me that keeping marijuana illegal makes criminals out of ordinary people. Everyone knows the stuff is illegal, they know the risks, they do it anyway. That's ordinary people making criminals out of themselves. That's my opinion (And yes, I'm going to be pig-headed and say there isn't much you can say to sway me into thinking this stuff should be legal).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Lots of things that are bad for us are legal. Where do we draw that line? Also lots of things we could "do without". Who decides?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lots of things that are bad for us are legal. Where do we draw that line? Also lots of things we could "do without". Who decides?
Well, honestly, I draw the line for myself. As for the rest of the country, that's up to the government. And for now, guess what, the Government considers marijuana a big enough risk to the economy and well-being of this country to keep it illegal.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Risk to the economy? Legalizing and then taxing marijuana would help the economy, and I know of no economist who disagrees.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
According to Stephen Levitt, there has never been a study that proves this.
Regarding the "Where do you draw the line?" debate: There shouldn't be any line. If we're going to keep drugs like alcohol, tobacco, salvia, various inhalants, various hallucinogenic compounds, and painkillers (most of which can kill you) legal, I don't see the rationale behind making drugs like marijuana and MDMA illegal (neither of which can kill you - or at least, not directly)).
In my view, all drugs should be illegal, or all drugs should be legal: there will never be a compromise that people can agree on. The line we have today seems very arbitrary, and I've yet to see any compelling arguments for the continuation of things as they are.
My favorite is the argument that it would have a detrimental effect on the youth of America...the great irony of it being that illegal drugs are way, way, way easier to obtain than alcohol or tobacco are when you're underage.
Oh, and thanks for the link, Dag. It's interesting that that bit of legislation exists, and is completely and totally unenforced.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Well, honestly, I draw the line for myself. As for the rest of the country, that's up to the government. And for now, guess what, the Government considers marijuana a big enough risk to the economy and well-being of this country to keep it illegal.
The government is not my mother. It should have little right to tell me what I can't do, unless that action is harmful to others. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves because of people like you who seem perfectly willing to let the government tell you what to do for no reason other than "because we say so."
For the record, I've never tried marijuana, nor do I have any desire to do so. But I strongly support legalization of marijuana because I have yet to hear of one way where it causes any harm to others, aside from the gang violence that is a direct result of the drug's prohibition.
In a free country, we should not need to provide a compelling reason why something should be legal. The government should have to provide a compelling reason why it should be illegal. So far that has not been done to my satisfaction, and the majority of the citizens of Denver apparently agree with me.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government is not my mother. It should have little right to tell me what I can't do, unless that action is harmful to others. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves because of people like you who seem perfectly willing to let the government tell you what to do for no reason other than "because we say so."
For the record, I've never tried marijuana, nor do I have any desire to do so. But I strongly support legalization of marijuana because I have yet to hear of one way where it causes any harm to others, aside from the gang violence that is a direct result of the drug's prohibition.
It's harmful to others the same way alcohol is: because it impairs several abilities and irresponsible users end up hurting people (ever seen those charming commercials where the stoned teenagers run over the little girl coming out of the drive thru? Or the one where one stoned kid pulls out his dad's gun and shoots the other kid "by accident"?)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nooooo.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
. Oh well.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
