Marijuana

[Petyr Baelish]

Should marijuana be decriminalized?

[Anima Eternae]

Despite my hatred for hippies, I have to vote "yes". It's no worse than alcohol.

[Felix the Cat]

Legal but expensive. Tax it brutally.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Absolutely not. I hate the sort of people who use it and I want to spite them.

[OVERWATCH]

Absolutely not. I hate the sort of people who use it and I want to spite them.

*whistles innocently*

[Jimbo Gomez]

*whistles innocently*

*slowly reaches for his club* :D

[Petyr Baelish]

Absolutely not. I hate the sort of people who use it and I want to spite them.


I think somebody's been watching too much Reefer Madness.

[OVERWATCH]

*slowly reaches for his club* :D

Silly Chucky, I have +6 full body armour crafted by the "high wizard" Gatewood Galbraith, composed of hemp-kevlar composite fibres. :p

btw I voted 'yes' on the poll. *braces for combat*

[Jimbo Gomez]

Hehe, wear all the kevlar you want, I happen to know you puny human have something in common with baby seals: the back of your head is allergic to blows by heavy objects. :D

You'd be too stoned to see me coming old man.

[Ixtab]

It's no worse than alcohol.Or maybe alcohol consumption should also be criminalised.

[Starr]

Absolutely not. I hate the sort of people who use it and I want to spite them.


What type of people use it? I have been shocked quite a few times to learn the people you might least expect of using it, do.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I'm talking about the pinko assholes. You know the type.

[Atlas]

I don't smoke and drink anymore.

I see nothing positive with weed being legal so no.

Being a pothead doesn't make you a nigger but it sure make you a hippie, I've never met a regular pot smoker who isn't a fucked up wanker.

[Helios Panoptes]

I don't smoke and drink anymore.

I see nothing positive with weed being legal so no.

Being a pothead doesn't make you a nigger but it sure make you a hippie, I've never met a regular pot smoker who isn't a fucked up wanker.


88mmFlaK is a pot smoker and I wouldn't say he's "a fucked up wanker."

[Banat]

After some thought, I unfortunately came to a conclusion that it should. But I'm not sure, so I didn't vote yet. Here are the 'pro-s':

1. Legal sale would make the business of the dealers unprofitable;

2. Standardization would enable the users to get clean stuff, unmixed with other harmful substances;

3. Legalization would mean a controlled sale, which would decrease both the number of the dealers and quantity of the drug sold to minors;

4. It could be taxed in a legal way.

On the other hand, it is not going to happen. It will hardly ever be allowed for companies to grow cannabis fields and develop its industry for the sole purpose of 'drug abuse'.

Or maybe alcohol consumption should also be criminalised.

No, it shouldn't. I think it should not.

[zenero]

I don't smoke and drink anymore.

I see nothing positive with weed being legal so no.

Being a pothead doesn't make you a nigger but it sure make you a hippie, I've never met a regular pot smoker who isn't a fucked up wanker.I recall you once having a debate with someone, and you lost it. You called every potsmoker a degenerate nigger-like. Your generalizing my friend. Back up you're claims, and come back later.

[Berianidze]

Absolutely not. I don't think I have to explain this one.

[Niko Bellic]

The idea of a plant being illegal is absurd to me. It's a fucking plant!

[Billy Score]

Or maybe alcohol consumption should also be criminalised.
My thoughts on the subject lie above.

[jcs]

Other.
I don't care. Laws are nonsense; the legislative system is a tool used by moralists to moralize over a-moral issues, and impose their moralizations.

It's not like one gets in a lot of trouble for smoking pot anyway--especially considering the un-liklihood of getting caught. So, who cares? This is a non-issue with which only stoners and bitchy mothers are really concerned. But everyone else likes to give their opinion: such is the nature of democracy.

Or maybe alcohol consumption should also be criminalised.
Wouldn't work. People living in this insanity need to drown out their miseries. Try looking for causes rather than symptoms...

[daisy]

i do not want them to legalize it. it is not for everyone.
it is not for me. i don't want it.
it is a tool used heavily in u.s. to keep muds nodded out.

[Petr]

Take that libertarians:


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7043


The Kids Are Alwrong

By Steve Sailer
Published 9/7/2004 12:06:05 AM


In Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown, Samuel L. Jackson comes home to find Bridget Fonda lying on the couch, smoking dope, and giggling at the TV. Disgusted, he tells her that marijuana will rob her of her ambitions.

"Not if your ambition is to get high and watch TV," she replies.

It's fashionable among conservative and libertarian journalists, such as the editors of National Review and Reason magazines, to demand the decriminalization or legalization of drugs, especially of marijuana.

Many weighty arguments have been mobilized in support of this cause. Yet this movement has only made fitful progress in the quarter of a century since the first generation of American voters to have much first-hand experience with marijuana began to have children themselves. Parents now understand that additional marijuana use would exacerbate many of the unhealthy and unfulfilling trends already at work in our society.

The problem with marijuana is not that it's some wild and crazy thing, but that it's middle-age-in-a-bong. Smoking dope saps the energy from youth, turning them into sedentary couch potatoes.

The parents of America already have a hard enough time getting their teenagers -- and, increasingly, their adult children who have come back home to live -- off the TV room floor when they are perfectly straight. Parents understand that changing laws to make marijuana more readily available -- and, let's not kid ourselves, that's what these "reforms" would do -- would create an even more inert and obese generation of young people.

Smoking dope may not do all that many of the horrible things often attributed to it, but it definitely makes people want to sit down. And that's something even the most clean and sober young people of the 21st Century do way too much of already.

Whenever parents get together, the talk eventually turns to how Kids These Days -- including perfectly adjusted ones -- never want to go outside. Sunshine is their enemy. Everything they desire most in life -- 100 channels, video games, instant messaging -- comes to them on a screen, best viewed in a darkened room.


MARIJUANA ALSO MAKES PEOPLE easily amused. In an electronic age, where an unlimited supply of entertainment is instantly available around the clock, that's not a good thing. It's hard enough to for young people to decide that they shouldn't spend another twenty minutes flipping through the cable TV dial once again on the assumption that -- while all the programs the last six times around were lame -- something cool has got to have come on in the meantime. Add THC to their brain chemistry and they're headed for an infinite loop.

Eventually, marijuana-augmented TV addiction becomes a very real threat to getting anything done in life. The last thing parents want is for their children is for them to wind up like that perpetually baked stoner The Dude ("or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing") played by Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski.

It's not just technology's fault. The way middle class parents now raise their kids can incline them toward passivity, which the availability of marijuana can horribly aggravate.

Another reason kids don't go outside anymore is because leaving the house has become an enormous production number. When I had a baseball game as a kid, I merely grabbed my glove and walked or biked to the park. No trouble.

My son's adolescent teammates, in contrast, never arrive for their league games in anything less massive than a Ford Explorer, because the crime rate is too scary for their parents to let them walk and the traffic too dense for them to pedal. Further, they have to lug not only a duffel bag full of baseball impedimenta, but at least one, and preferably, both parents, lest they grow up to write self-pitying screenplays about how nobody ever came to watch them play.

Not surprisingly, the concept of spontaneously heading over to the park between scheduled games to see who wants to play some ball seems to modern suburban boys to be as outdated and unfeasible an idea for having fun as tipping cows.

Growing up in a world where every activity is carefully scheduled by parents means fewer youths are self-starters. They don't expect to initiate activity. They take the same attitude toward free time as do soldiers in a hurry-up-and-wait Army: unless somebody in command is yelling at them to do something, they don't do anything. They just flop down and try to amuse themselves in the mean time. More marijuana would only make this already inactive lifestyle worse.

Not surprisingly, young Americans have gotten fatter and fatter as the proliferation of remote controls means they don't even have to walk across the room anymore to turn up the stereo. Believe me: the munchies aren't going to make that problem any better.

[Niko Bellic]

Take that Libertarians, my ass.

Here's how it works in the real world. When I was in high school, I smoked pot far more than I drank alcohol. Think about it. Why would that be the case?

Because drug dealers don't ask for ID!

It was much easier to get weed than alcohol. If pot is legal, it will destroy the black market trade just as it did when alcohol prohibition was overturned. NOBODY is talking about allowing teenagers to legally buy pot! When pot goes mainstream, and it will, the only question is when, the illegal pot dealers will lose their business, and adults will be carded whenever they buy their legal pot. So parents will have an easier time with keeping their kids off pot.

[OVERWATCH]

Take that Libertarians, my ass.

Here's how it works in the real world. When I was in high school, I smoked pot far more than I drank alcohol. Think about it. Why would that be the case?

Because drug dealers don't ask for ID!

It was much easier to get weed than alcohol. If pot is legal, it will destroy the black market trade just as it did when alcohol prohibition was overturned. NOBODY is talking about allowing teenagers to legally buy pot! When pot goes mainstream, and it will, the only question is when, the illegal pot dealers will lose their business, and adults will be carded whenever they buy their legal pot. So parents will have an easier time with keeping their kids off pot.

I also found that herb was easier to buy than alcohol during high school years.

If it isn't taxed, then that will eliminate the black market entirely. If it is taxed though, there will still be some black market in marijuana, which will be proportional in size to the amount of taxation; more taxation, more incentive to avoid those taxes.

However, many folks will simply grow their own.

Legalisation would also stop the spraying of the herbicide paraquat by law enforcement; this can't have good effects, and given the fact that large numbers of people smoke the sprayed herb, this would remove a causative agent for neurological maladies like Parkinson's.

[Anima Eternae]

Or maybe alcohol consumption should also be criminalised.

Allahu ackbar.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Hehehe, putting an agent into pot to give its users parkinson's eh. Me likey. :D

[Petyr Baelish]

Take that libertarians:




LOL, just like Petr to think that he's emerged victorious in a debate simply by spamming an opinion article with a lot of unsubstantiated opinions.

[Petyr Baelish]

Hehehe, putting an agent into pot to give its users parkinson's eh. Me likey. :D


I doubt it would work. Cannabinoids have a strong anti-oxidant/neuroprotective property that protects dopaminergic brain cells.

[Petyr Baelish]

Other.
I don't care. Laws are nonsense; the legislative system is a tool used by moralists to moralize over a-moral issues, and impose their moralizations.

Maybe so, but so long as we have government, we will have laws.

This is a non-issue with which only stoners and bitchy mothers are really concerned.

Tell that to my multiple sclerosis-afflicted friend who is now facing charges of 'intent to distribute' because some overzealous cop caught him with a few grams of medicinal marijuana (for which he incidentally had a presciption).

[Petyr Baelish]

The problem with marijuana is not that it's some wild and crazy thing, but that it's middle-age-in-a-bong. Smoking dope saps the energy from youth, turning them into sedentary couch potatoes.


ROFL, right. For your information, there is absolutely no evidence that marijuana causes amotivation for any span longer than the duration of its intoxication. Get back to me when your clay-footed idol Steve Sailer gets some relevant medical credentials (or any credentials, for that matter) and conducts a peer-reviewed study demonstrating the veracity of his claims.

[Anima Eternae]

I've done weed twice. Second time I puked my guts out, and I haven't done it since.

The first time was awesome, the second was probably one of the worst experiences in my entire life.

[Billy Score]

Hehehe, putting an agent into pot to give its users parkinson's eh. Me likey. :D
Batches of bad heroin, anything works. i support this notion.

[Petyr Baelish]

Batches of bad heroin, anything works. i support this notion.

Typical of a hateful communist. You just boil over with rage when you see people having fun, don't you? See a psychiatrist - you are a profoundly disturbed man.

[Billy Score]

Typical of a hateful communist. You just boil over with rage when you see people having fun, don't you? See a psychiatrist - you are a profoundly disturbed man.

society is disturbed in that it encourages such vile degeneracy. this shouldn't even be a question. the question should be how much tougher should punishment be, not should punishment be abolished.

[Starr]

We are talking about marijuana use. "vile degeneracy" is just a tad harsh, wouldn't you say?

[Jimbo Gomez]

We are talking about marijuana use. "vile degeneracy" is just a tad harsh, wouldn't you say?

no :nono:

[OVERWATCH]

Labelling any cannabis use no matter what kind, as "vile degeneracy" is ridiculous. Let's use that phrase when referring to something which is truly vile degeneracy, for instance, addicts or sex offenders. There's a huge leap between an irresponsible addict and a responsible user. Overusing a term like 'degeneracy', makes it lose it's meaning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=degenerate

[Martin Kuklinski]

Being a pothead doesn't make you a nigger but it sure make you a hippieThat's so freakin absurd. Hitler granted permission to the German forces in Russia, to smoke cannabis after a hard day fighting them Bolsheviks, brainwashed Commie soldiers. Would you call them hippies ???

[Helios Panoptes]

Martin, can I get a source on that?

society is disturbed in that it encourages such vile degeneracy.

In what way is it degenerate for a person to responsibly use marijuana or do you deny that it is possible to exercise moderation? I have a major problem with people who spend their lives stoned on one drug or another, but far from marijuana users, in general, fall into this category. If society creates individuals so undisciplined that they cannot use marijuana without spiraling out of control, whose fault is that? I cannot think of reasons besides ascetic univeralism and hatred of hippies to keep it criminalized. These aren't real reasons.

[Martin Kuklinski]

Martin, can I get a source on that?No you can't.

[Petyr Baelish]

If society creates individuals so undisciplined that they cannot use marijuana without spiraling out of control, whose fault is that?

That's actually an excellent point considering that marijuana technically less addictive potential than caffeine.

[Petyr Baelish]

I've done weed twice. Second time I puked my guts out, and I haven't done it since.


Were you drinking the second time? Marijuana actually has strong anti-emetic properties - it is, as a matter of fact, prescribed to chemotherapy patients in order to reduce nausea caused by opiates. It seems to magnify nausea when it is taken with alcohol - I don't know the pharmacology of this phenomenon.

[Petyr Baelish]

Labelling any cannabis use no matter what kind, as "vile degeneracy" is ridiculous.

Communism is neurotic envy packaged into an easily swallowable ideological pill. When a communist absurdly refers to a harmless activity as 'degeneracy' it is merely because he cannot enjoy it, for some reason or the other, and is envious to the point of murderous hatred of those who do.

[Anima Eternae]

Were you drinking the second time?

Nope. All I took was a huge freakin' hit and I puked my guts out.

[sugartits]

Marijuana is so harmless. One of the issues (unknowledgable) people against it seem to have is that it is a so-called "gateway drug". But if it were taken out of the same "illegal" category as other, harder drugs, that idea would cease to have any merit.

Personally, I dislike smoking pot, but a lot of people I know smoke it regularily and don't seem to be lazy or fiendish. The only realy problem I have with it is that my boyfriend spends too much money on it. And hopefully if pot is ever decriminalized governments will understand that for that to work a gram should cost half the street price, and not be taxed to death (like they are currently doing here in Canada with tobacco -possibly making way for a future of cigarette smuggling)

And to who suggested that alcohol be criminalized -do you remember that brief period of prohibition? Gangsters profited and everyone got their hooch despite the law.

[Anima Eternae]

The people pushing the prohibition of alcohol are nothing but lonely teenage RATM listening communists; pay them no heed.

[Berianidze]

The people pushing the prohibition of alcohol are nothing but lonely teenage RATM listening communists; pay them no heed.

False. In regards to alcohol I see it as something that cannot be handled by most people, it gets misused and we get alcoholics and drunkards. Anything that raises to question whether or not it can be used responsibly ultimately should be discouraged, if not outright banned. People aren't capable of controlling themselves, and that's the problem right there.

It's not out of my own lack of enjoyment of life, or that I'm lonely, and especially not because I'm an angsty RATM listening communist; I'm none of the above, I just don't think people can use such devices (alcohol or marijuana) appropriately and the downside of such chemical substances far outweigh the positives.

[Petyr Baelish]

False. In regards to alcohol I see it as something that cannot be handled by most people, it gets misused and we get alcoholics and drunkards.

Only 15% of all alcohol users become dependent on the substance, which is certainly a far cry from 'most'. Marijuana, which, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive, has an even smaller incidence of depdence (5-7%).

Anything that raises to question whether or not it can be used responsibly ultimately should be discouraged, if not outright banned.

Do you perchance also advocate the banning of automobiles, bicycles, kitchen jutensils, firearms, matches, lighters, money and bank accounts?

People aren't capable of controlling themselves, and that's the 'problem right there.

Some people are not capable of controlling themselves. That does not mean that the majority should suffer for the inadequacies of such people.

just don't think people can use such devices (alcohol or marijuana) appropriately and the downside of such chemical substances far outweigh the positives.

Other than the fact that a user's reaction time and short-term memory are impaired during marijuana intoxication, can you name one 'negative' associated with it?

[sugartits]

False. In regards to alcohol I see it as something that cannot be handled by most people, it gets misused and we get alcoholics and drunkards. Anything that raises to question whether or not it can be used responsibly ultimately should be discouraged, if not outright banned. People aren't capable of controlling themselves, and that's the problem right there.

That's a problem that would not be solved by prohibition. What about people that can't control their indulgence in food and over eat? What about crack addicts? The prohibition of the drug doesn't take away the problem.

And what constitutes control over oneself? (the ability to act according to the standards you hold regarding what is appropriate behaviour, hmm? Just my guess) Also, the inability to "control" oneself is surely not an issue strictly involving substance abuse.

[Berianidze]

Only 15% of all alcohol users become dependent on the substance, which is certainly a far cry from 'most'. Marijuana, which, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive, has an even smaller incidence of depdence (5-7%).

I didn't say most whom use alcohol will become dependent, but 15% is still a problematic number. It's not the dependency factor alone that bothers me about such substances, but also the nature in which people take such thing: individual pleasures. I don't see why individuals should engage in such behavior to give themselves pleasure, or to take a break from the realities of life. I see it as subvsersive and disruptive behavior.

Do you perchance also advocate the banning of automobiles, bicycles, kitchen jutensils, firearms, matches, lighters, money and bank accounts?

Automobiles and kitchen utensils are okay, but public transportation should greatly be emphasized and encouraged over personal automobibles; kitchen utensils I don't really see a problem with; firearms: only the police and military should have them, matches/lighters: banned as well; money and bank accounts: private ownership and the capitalistic banking system would be BANNED!.

Some people are not capable of controlling themselves. That does not mean that the majority should suffer for the inadequacies of such people.

Some people who can't control themselves also hold important positions or occupations; not to mention ALL of society should be expected to live and perform at a specified degree of morality and efficiency.

Other than the fact that a user's reaction time and short-term memory are impaired during the duration of marijuana intoxication, can you name one 'negative' associated with it?

For starter's, most potheads and regular marijuana smokers are extremely lazy and are completely complacent, their indifference bothers me and is disturbing. Not to mention as I stated before I see recreation substance use as subversive in its own, and runs counter to progress.

That's a problem that would not be solved by prohibition. What about people that can't control their indulgence in food and over eat? What about crack addicts? The prohibition of the drug doesn't take away the problem.

The problem with prohibition was that it wasn't enforced properly; drug dealers should be shot, and users and addicts should be rehabilitated in forced labor colonies. Those who overeat would succomb to similar consequences, most likely forced labor colonies.

And what constitutes control over oneself? (the ability to act according to the standards you hold regarding what is appropriate behaviour, hmm? Just my guess) Also, the inability to "control" oneself is surely not an issue strictly involving substance abuse.

You're right, the inability to control oneself is surely not an issue strictly involving substance abuse, that is why I've always been in favor of government control over basically every aspect of life. To control oneself isn't as subjective as it may sound, it means doing what's best for society and not fucking up by taking or using something that may jeopardize your ability or judgment in performing whatever duties/tasks you may be asked to perform for your society.

[sugartits]

The problem with prohibition was that it wasn't enforced properly; drug dealers should be shot, and users and addicts should be rehabilitated in forced labor colonies. Those who overeat would succomb to similar consequences, most likely forced labor colonies.

Shooting and harsh punishment solves everything?


You're right, the inability to control oneself is surely not an issue strictly involving substance abuse, that is why I've always been in favor of government control over basically every aspect of life.

Thats pretty bizarre. What is the purpose of that?

[Berianidze]

Shooting and harsh punishment solves everything?

Drug dealers are perhaps the most vile human beings believable; they make money by taking advantage of weak-minded users and aide in the suffering and degeneration of their lives; executing them is justice, as they only seek to harm society for money, a crime that is equitable to murder or treason.

Thats pretty bizarre. What is the purpose of that?

I lack any confidence in human beings to control their lives in a constructive manner that is conducive to society and progress.

[Petyr Baelish]

I didn't say most whom use alcohol will become dependent, but 15% is still a problematic number. It's not the dependency factor alone that bothers me about such substances, but also the nature in which people take such thing: individual pleasures. I don't see why individuals should engage in such behavior to give themselves pleasure, or to take a break from the realities of life. I see it as subvsersive and disruptive behavior.

In other words, you advocate outlawing pleasure? That is beyond the absurd and the bizzare - in any event, I doubt that you would find very many willing converts to your way of life.


Automobiles and kitchen utensils are okay

Why? Automobiles and kitchen utensils are responsible for more deaths that all illegal drugs combined. Certainly there are some people who would be unable to control themselves with such things.

but public transportation should greatly be emphasized and encouraged over personal automobibles; kitchen utensils I don't really see a problem with; firearms: only the police and military should have them, matches/lighters: banned as well; money and bank accounts: private ownership and the capitalistic banking system would be BANNED!.

LOL. I don't think your wet-dreams will be implemented any time soon in any sane society. You should probably consider relocating to North Korea.

Some people who can't control themselves also hold important positions or occupations.

So what? If they can not control themselves and have no access to recreational chemicals, their lack of control will manifest itself will manifest in other ways - sex addiction or bizzare sex perversions, gluttony, etc... The only way of preventing psychological habituation in its entirety is by banning anything that could conceivably serve as a source of please, and only a lunatic would advocate that.

not to mention ALL of society should be expected to live and perform at a specified degree of morality and efficiency.

Specified by whom? My idea of morality is clearly different from yours and you most certainly haven't convinced me that your conception thereof is somehow superior to mine.

For starter's, most potheads and regular marijuana smokers are extremely lazy and are completely complacent, their indifference bothers me and is disturbing.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back these claims up or are you just talking out of your ass?

Not to mention as I stated before I see recreation substance use as subversive in its own, and runs counter to progress.

ROFL, you see recreation and pleasure itself as 'subversive' - an idea that any sane human being would find disturbing beyond belief. I wonder what your idea of progress is... North Korea? Maoist China?

The problem with prohibition was that it wasn't enforced properly; drug dealers should be shot, and users and addicts should be rehabilitated in forced labor colonies.

I don't suppose that you've ever heard of little country called Thailand where drug dealers are shot, drug users imprisoned, and which manufactures record quantities of heroin and methamphetamine?

[Petyr Baelish]

I lack any confidence in human beings to control their lives in a constructive manner that is conducive to society and progress.


Who appointed you moral, ethical and cultural arbiter of humankind?

[Ixtab]

Rice is just trying to be provocative; ignore him.

[OVERWATCH]

It's not the dependency factor alone that bothers me about such substances, but also the nature in which people take such thing: individual pleasures. I don't see why individuals should engage in such behavior to give themselves pleasure, or to take a break from the realities of life. I see it as subvsersive and disruptive behavior.


That's absolutely ridiculous: the need for recreation and escape from harsh realities is a basic human need. Your dogma is in conflict with human nature.

[OVERWATCH]

Rice is just trying to be provocative; ignore him.

True.

asdfasdf

[Berianidze]

Do you have any scientific evidence to back these claims up or are you just talking out of your ass?

It is rather common knowledge that after the initial alertness, many pot smokers enter a state of lassitude, drowsiness and become quite lethargic. As a student I come across regular marijuana smoker's, a number (not all of them) don't do their work, don't show up to class on time, don't hold regular jobs for more than a month, etc. I'm not saying this is a universal effect, but it is prevalent in a number of cases.

Not to mention the other effects that vary from mildly annoying to extremely aggravating/destructive: paramnesia probably being the worst of these.

[Berianidze]

Rice is just trying to be provocative; ignore him.

False, I'm stating my opinion, unlike you mine doesn't vary from week to week. I've been consistent with my views for as long as I've posted on these forums. If you don't like them fine, you can just ignore them!

[Berianidze]

That's absolutely ridiculous: the need for recreation and escape from harsh realities is a basic human need. Your dogma is in conflict with human nature.

I never said my ideas would be implemented as policy, this is just how I feel on the subject.

[Helios Panoptes]

Far from being a radical libertarian(quite the opposite), I firmly believe that people should temper their appetites. However, there comes a point that personal responsibility must take over and this is instilled by proper education, not governmental micromanagement. People are capable of exercising moderation if their virtues are developed. It's rather ridiculous to say that the state must stop people from experiencing anything pleasurable, lest they becomes slaves to it. Not only does it run contrary to the nature of most humans, is difficult if not impossible to enforce, but it fails to fix the fundamental problem: it doesn't create more virtuous citizens. Basically, it puts the cart before the horse by not addressing the peoples' ethos, but rather inundating them with legalistic restrictions. This will never result in change in their character and will eventually lead the state to collapse under the weight of its bureaucratic tyranny.

[Petyr Baelish]

That's absolutely ridiculous: the need for recreation and escape from harsh realities is a basic human need. Your dogma is in conflict with human nature.

It is not simply human nature that his lunacy is in conflict with but the nature of life itself. All animals are genetically predisposed to seek pleasruable sensations and to develop coping mechanisms (such as recreational intoxicant use) when confronted with stressful or unpleasant circumstances. Unless rice has a brilliant plan to somehow alter the fundamental rules of biology, he'd be better off preaching his ideology to robots.

[sugartits]

I lack any confidence in human beings to control their lives in a constructive manner that is conducive to society and progress.

That may be true, because many people are not concerned with being useful and constructive to their society and its progress.

Idealizing control over every facet of people's lives could also be a degeneracy itself (a vice of power or the desire for it, a lack in confidence for the future, simply pessimism).

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

I voted no. But I'd rather have alcohol consumption criminalized.

[Heavens to Betsy]

It is rather common knowledge that after the initial alertness, many pot smokers enter a state of lassitude, drowsiness and become quite lethargic. As a student I come across regular marijuana smoker's, a number (not all of them) don't do their work, don't show up to class on time, don't hold regular jobs for more than a month, etc. I'm not saying this is a universal effect, but it is prevalent in a number of cases.


That's a generalisation and a corelation that doesn't prove anything.
A pot-smoking friend of mine is currently training for the triathalon. But I'm not going to try and prove anything with that.

Legalise it. All the people who want to smoke it already do. At least if it's legal they're no longer financing dealers, smugglers and gangsters/

[Eisenhans]

Marijuana does nothing but destroy your brain and create retarded lobs of nothing that sit around and have someone care for them because they fried the "movement" section of their cranium.

Of course there are worse drugs that do worse to your body, I still say this one is just as bad. Think about it: Why drugs? What do they do other than make you say "hehe...colours...."? What's so special about them?

[Anima Eternae]

Agreed!

Now let's get smashed and stomp some WOGS!

[Anima Eternae]

And FYI, weed doesn't make you see colors. It just changes your perception of time and makes things very funny. :D

[Anarch]

I also found that herb was easier to buy than alcohol during high school years.

If it isn't taxed, then that will eliminate the black market entirely. If it is taxed though, there will still be some black market in marijuana, which will be proportional in size to the amount of taxation; more taxation, more incentive to avoid those taxes.

However, many folks will simply grow their own.

Legalisation would also stop the spraying of the herbicide paraquat by law enforcement; this can't have good effects, and given the fact that large numbers of people smoke the sprayed herb, this would remove a causative agent for neurological maladies like Parkinson's.

Buying alcohol was never an issue for me. I was drinking straight vodka out of a smirnoff bottle at 16. My parents bought it for me. :cool:

LOL, just like Petr to think that he's emerged victorious in a debate simply by spamming an opinion article with a lot of unsubstantiated opinions.

Petr always does that.

I lack any confidence in human beings to control their lives in a constructive manner that is conducive to society and progress.

SWEET! I mean, coz, like, GOVERNMENTS ARE MADE UP OF HUMAN BEINGS! So it's like... the corrupt controlling the corrupt! I've got an idea, rice - stick a noose around your neck and escape this decadent world of degeneration! The sooner the better :rofl:

[Petyr Baelish]

Marijuana does nothing but destroy your brain and create retarded lobs of nothing that sit around and have someone care for them because they fried the "movement" section of their cranium.

Ummm.... bullshit. The newest research actually shows that cannabinoids in marijuana help protect the brain, especially the dopaminergic system, from oxidative damage:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2082

There is also research suggesting that marijuana grows neurons in the brain:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/tb/1934

Educate yourself if you don't wish to sound like an ignoramus.

Why drugs? What do they do other than make you say "hehe...colours...."? What's so special about them?

They are a break from the ordinary, in the same sense that an outing to a restaurant, cinema, or the beach is. Some help people relax - others, alternately invigorate, energize and increase one's focus. Some are incredibly introspective - allowing one to glampse portions of his mind that he did not even know existed. Other drugs free one from neurotic inhibitions, shame and guilt and allow him to feel unadulterated love and empathy towards others. Some drugs help relieve chronic pain, others help one think faster and increase creativity. Drugs can serve as catalysts for deep personal transformation and religious epiphanies. To lump all consciousness-altering compounds, some which are completely unrelated to each other chemically or pharmacologically (who, for instance, could confuse the effects of methamphetamine with those of LSD?), into a blanket category and then proceed to make the indictment that they are 'bad' is as utterly insane as saying that 'technology is bad' or 'food is bad' or 'animals are bad'. Again, you should probably educate yourself on the subject to avoid making yourself seem utterly clueless as to what you are talking about.

[Niko Bellic]

It's a plant! A fucking plant! Either God or evolution made it. To outlaw a plant is idiocy.

[Starr]

False. In regards to alcohol I see it as something that cannot be handled by most people, it gets misused and we get alcoholics and drunkards. Anything that raises to question whether or not it can be used responsibly ultimately should be discouraged, if not outright banned. People aren't capable of controlling themselves, and that's the problem right there.

A lot of people cannot handle alcohol. And almost everyone who drinks is probably going to have one or two experiences where they may act like an idiot when they are drunk and get themselves in trouble. But most "social drinkers" handle their alcohol in a way that just allows them to have a little fun, a vast majority of the time. Alcoholics are an entirely different category. If the alcohol wasn't there for these people it would just be some other type of addiction.

[Anarch]

Is Methylenedioxymethamphanatik the member formerly known as Tchort?

[Billy Score]

Marijuana does nothing but destroy your brain and create retarded lobs of nothing that sit around and have someone care for them because they fried the "movement" section of their cranium.

Of course there are worse drugs that do worse to your body, I still say this one is just as bad. Think about it: Why drugs? What do they do other than make you say "hehe...colours...."? What's so special about them?

Oh you're just trying to be provocative. We should ignore you, according to ix.

The question is DO WE NEED ALCOHOL? No. We do not. We can live fine lives without it. If society NEEDS alcohol, then society has serious dysfunctions that need to be corrected, not indulged. Rice is right.

[Starr]

No, we do not need it. But many of us like to use it on occassion and can do so responsibly. So the majority should not be able to do so because there are a few people out there who cannot handle it responsibly, or is it just because Mazdak does not personally like it?

[Kodos]

Yes Petr most pot smokers are lazy... doesn't justify the cost to the taxpayer and to the 4th amendment of fighting this drug war farce. The only positive is it tends to deprive a lot of people who shouldn't be voting of their voting rights( though not a decisive margin).

[Helios Panoptes]

Oh you're just trying to be provocative. We should ignore you, according to ix.

Oh, he's probably serious, just completely misinformed.

The question is DO WE NEED ALCOHOL? No. We do not. We can live fine lives without it. If society NEEDS alcohol, then society has serious dysfunctions that need to be corrected, not indulged. Rice is right.

Need it for what exactly? Economic utility? No, but this line of thinking is out of touch with human nature itself. It's like saying we don't need to speak more than a few words a day, which theoretically we do not.

Is Methylenedioxymethamphanatik the member formerly known as Tchort?

I thought the same, but he said he was not. Liar! :p

Most of the extreme anti-drug people are like religious fanatics. I hate to say it, but it is consistently borne out in these topics. They simply ignore any argument presented against them and obliviously carry one. Ix is absolutely correct.

[Billy Score]

Vlad- i was being sarcastic. Ix said the same thing about rice earlier so i am simply mocking him by saying it about his "friend." I agree with the lad.

And starr, yes. Because i don't like it you shouldn't drink it. I don't see reason for further justifying this.

[Helios Panoptes]

Vlad- i was being sarcastic. Ix said the same thing about rice earlier so i am simply mocking him by saying it about his "friend." I agree with the lad.

I do not agree with my friends when I think they are mistaken. That would be to do them a disservice. I am disinclined to flattery. If they're not egomaniacs, this should be appreciated. In fact, those I consider comrades are most likely to hear my dissent when it is in order.

And starr, yes. Because i don't like it you shouldn't drink it. I don't see reason for further justifying this.

If you're not joking, this is unreasonable.

[Starr]

I don't think he is joking, but hell, at least he is honest.:p

[Petyr Baelish]

Is Methylenedioxymethamphanatik the member formerly known as Tchort?

No, I am not.

[Aule]

Prodigal Son?

[Eisenhans]

It's a plant! A fucking plant! Either God or evolution made it. To outlaw a plant is idiocy.
True-but it's not outlawing the plant. It's outlawing what people do with it.

Ummm.... bullshit. The newest research actually shows that cannabinoids in marijuana help protect the brain, especially the dopaminergic system, from oxidative damage:

Heh-this coming from a Methylenedioxymethamphanatik. Then explain to me why the potheads at my school speak really slowly and look in a different direction when they speak to people.

[Petyr Baelish]

True-but it's not outlawing the plant. It's outlawing what people do with it.

No, it's outlawing the plant. Possession of marijuana is illegal, regardless of what one intends to do with it. I can get arrested for having a decorative hemp plant in my house, regardless of the fact that I may have no intention of consuming it.

Heh-this coming from a Methylenedioxymethamphanatik.

LOL - so the fact that I posted links to peer-reviewed medical studies renders these studies invalid? You Neo-Nazis never struck me as the most reasonable people...

[Starr]

Then explain to me why the potheads at my school speak really slowly and look in a different direction when they speak to people

very temporary.

[Eisenhans]

If temporary means "for more than four years straight," then I guess you may be right.

And mexatharijuanatikwhatsoever: It's called SARCASM!!!!!!!!

[Starr]

They are probably always stoned.:p You did classify them as "potheads" rather than just people who smoke pot. I have known many people throughout my life that smoke pot on occassion, some a little more than that and the only time they act in the way you describe is sometimes when they are stoned. So I don't really need to read a lot of articles about pot and its supposed lasting effects(which are never partial, almost always either 100% pro or con) to come to the conclusion that the idea is probably bogus.

[Jimbo Gomez]

It's a plant! A fucking plant! Either God or evolution made it. To outlaw a plant is idiocy.

We'd outlaw the use of the plant. God made rocks too, but that doesn't make beating someone with a rock any less illegal. Rocks aren't outlawed either, only certain use of it is. I would allow the use of marihuana for scientific research, so the plant wouldn't be completely illegal.

edit: oops, didn't see that similar reply, sorry there

[Petyr Baelish]

God made rocks too, but that doesn't make beating someone with a rock any less illegal.

LOL, how can you compare consensual consumption of a harmless (in many ways, beneficial) substance with assault? Your analogy is as ridiculous as comparing drinking a beer with stabbing somebody.

[Jimbo Gomez]

LOL, how can you compare consensual consumption of a harmless (in many ways, beneficial) substance with assault? Your analogy is as ridiculous as comparing drinking a beer with stabbing somebody.


In both cases certain uses of things found in nature are outlawed and criminalized. Simple as that. :)

[Petyr Baelish]

In both cases certain uses of things found in nature are outlawed and criminalized.

Not quite as simple as that. In one case (i.e. using a rock to hit somebody) using something natural poses an immediate threat to the safety of another human being. In the other case, what is outlawed and criminalized is the consensual, personal use of a nearly harmless substance. Just as the government has no right to tell me what and what not to think, it has absolutely no right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body, especially if it's something as harmless as marijuana.

[Billy Score]

We'd outlaw the use of the plant. God made rocks too, but that doesn't make beating someone with a rock any less illegal. Rocks aren't outlawed either, only certain use of it is. I would allow the use of marihuana for scientific research, so the plant wouldn't be completely illegal.

edit: oops, didn't see that similar reply, sorry there

I support this response wholeheartedly.

[Ixtab]

I support this response wholeheartedly.It's fascinating you agree with what someone else said. Thank you for that enlightening post.

[Billy Score]

It's fascinating you agree with what someone else said. Thank you for that enlightening post.
You are most certainly welcome, sir.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Not quite as simple as that.


Obviously it is. Do you deny that the use of marihuana is illegal?

[Petyr Baelish]

Do you deny that the use of marihuana is illegal?

I deny that private consumption of marijuana is in any way comparable to attacking someone else with a rock.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I deny that private consumption of marijuana is in any way comparable to attacking someone else with a rock.

Open any coursebook on criminal law and you'll find several things both have in common...

[Petyr Baelish]

Open any coursebook on criminal law and you'll find several things both have in common...

Lawyers are not exactly qualified to lecture on neuro- and psycho-pharmacology. Regardless, if you have any good arguments as to how exactly personal consumption of marijuana by consenting adults is ethically comparable to assault with a deadly weapon, I'd love to hear them.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I don't see how you can assume I implied a moral reason is needed to outlaw it. A majority of the legislators deemed the use of marihuana to be bad for society so they outlawed it. Any first year philosophy- or lawstudent will tell you that morality and legality not necesarily connect 100%. (unless of course if you live Sudan, Saudi Arabia or similar places, but seeing how you think religion is bad for society, I assume you don't really prefer a state where morality and legality touch 100%)

I am making an empirical statement here about the legality of pot, for some reason my simple statement seems to enrage you so much you lose all common sense needed to see it as what it is.

[Petyr Baelish]

I don't see how you can assume I implied a moral reason is needed to outlaw it.

Don't confuse tautological religion based morality with ethics.

A majority of the legislators deemed the use of marihuana to be bad for society so they outlawed it.

How are people who know little or nothing at all about biochemistry, physiology and neuro/psycho-pharmacology qualified to pass judgements on what drugs are 'bad'? Just as chemists and pharmacists have no place lecturing in a law school, lawyers and senators (assuming they have no medical or pharmacological training) have no place debating the merits and evils of drugs.


I am making an empirical statement here about the legality of pot, for some reason my simple statement seems to enrage you so much you lose all common sense needed to see it as what it is.

You are making a meaningless and tautological statement. What you are saying, in essence, is "Pot should be illegal because it is illegal". To quote St. Aquinas - Malla lex, nulla lex. Unless you can give a good reason as to why marijuana should remain illegal when the overwhelming consensus of the medical authorities is that it is not only benign but also medically beneficial, your argument has no merit (this is of course ignoring the issues that the government has dubious authority to tell human beings what they can and cannot put into their most private and intimate posession - the body).

[Berianidze]

Lawyers are not exactly qualified to lecture on neuro- and psycho-pharmacology. Regardless, if you have any good arguments as to how exactly personal consumption of marijuana by consenting adults is ethically comparable to assault with a deadly weapon, I'd love to hear them.

And experts in neuro- and psycho-pharmacology aren't exactly qualified to dictate legislation or what's best for society. Politicians and law-makers have to take into consideration a plethora of viewpoints and opinions when making decisions that effect all of society, and many of them consult with experts in the the medical field. Not everyone who's opposed to marijuana decriminalization is doing so out of an ethical or moral position, but also through the consultation and advice of experts on such topics.

[Petyr Baelish]

And experts in neuro- and psycho-pharmacology aren't exactly qualified to dictate legislation or what's best for society.

Insofar as the fields of their expertise are concerned, they are. The fact that lawyers with no knowledge of medicine are given authority to rule on specifically medical issues is as ridiculous as putting someone with no knowledge of engineering or architecture in charge of developing building codes.

Politicians and law-makers have to take into consideration a plethora of viewpoints and opinions when making decisions that effect all of society, and many of them consult with experts in the the medical field.

Judging by the level of abysmall ignorance that pervades various anti-drug thug outfits like the DEA, this is untrue. Here for instance, a biochemist corrects dozens of errors on an official DEA webpage:

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/analogue.htm


Not everyone who's opposed to marijuana decriminalization is doing so out of an ethical or moral position, but also through the consultation and advice of experts on such topics.

Again, judging by the actions of these people, this does not seem to be the case. The overwhelming concensus of the medical authorities is that marijuana, when used by healthy consenting adults is a harmless intoxicant and a potent medicine. The prohibitionists obviously couldn't give a damn about the evidence; all they are interested in is imposing their particular beliefs on others.

[Berianidze]

Insofar as the fields of their expertise are concerned, they are. The fact that lawyers with no knowledge of medicine are given authority to rule on specifically medical issues is ridiculous.

Okay, let's say that the negative effects of marijuana have been greatly exaggerated by the prohibitionists, that doesn't necessarily mean that decriminalizing marijuana and allowing the public to use it whenever they want will have a positive effect on society, we don't know how it would effect society, it's all speculation that depends on a number of variables. Legislators make decisions using the judgment alongside their decision making powers that have been entrusted to them to make decisions on behalf of the public--medical experts may have a vast knowledge of what may be good and bad for people, and how chemical substances affect the human body, but they don't always konw shit about policy.

Judging by the level of abysmall ignorance that pervades various anti-drug thug outfits like the DEA, this is untrue. Here for instance, a biochemist corrects dozens of errors on an official DEA webpage:

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shul...e/analogue.htm

I'm not that familiar with the DEA but I checked out that site; I never cited the United States Drug Enforcement Agency as the role model for any anti-drug entity.

Again, judging by the actions of these people, this does not seem to be the case. The overwhelming concensus of the medical authorities is that marijuana, when used by healthy consenting adults is a harmless intoxicant and a potent medicine. The prohibitionists obviously couldn't give a damn about the evidence; all they are interested in is imposing their particular beliefs on others.

But perhaps it should be addressed as to what causes people to want to take a "harlmess intoxicant" in the first place? People don't need to be intoxicated, regardless of where it comes from (alcohol, marijuana, etc.). This is the more important aspect of the debate, not the effects of marijuana itself, and not to turn this back into an ethical question, but a question of addressing societies problems in which individuals feel they have to use chemical substances to escape from reality or to make them feel good. That isn't something society should strive for at all.

All governments are interested in imposing their particular beliefs on otheres, that's pretty much how government and law works.

[Jimbo Gomez]

You are making a meaningless and tautological statement. What you are saying, in essence, is "Pot should be illegal because it is illegal".

Oh, where did I say that?

[Petyr Baelish]

Oh, where did I say that?

First, you made the absurd comparison between personal marijuana use and assault with a deadly weapon. Then, when I challenged you to substantiate this comparison, you resorted to an argumentum ad antiquitatum - the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that your main argument for keeping marijuana illegal is the fact that it's already illegal.

[Jimbo Gomez]

You really need to brush up on your comprehensive reading my friend. I make the comparison between them precisely because they're illegal, society deems the use of both in certain circumstances too dangerous for use, you ask me what they have in common, and I give you an answer. Nowhere did I mae a moral statement, and anyone with half a brain will see that when he reads my posts.

Don't assume to read something that isn't there, you'll make an ass out of you and me...

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I believe that in Switzerland and the Netherlands you can buy weed legaly. In the case of the dutch this permision goes back, what? twenty years? Besides the inmigrants I do not see how this country has imploded in an orgy of pot consumption and Reefer madness.

[infoterror]

Marijuana is the original Aryan drug. They don't call it Indica for nothing. See article in Tyr #2 for more detail.

OVERCOME KNEEJERK CONSERVATISM TODAY

[Helios Panoptes]

But perhaps it should be addressed as to what causes people to want to take a "harlmess intoxicant" in the first place?

I would prefer to say what should be addressed is what causes people to abandon reality in favor of a drug-induced dreamworld. This question should be dealt with in the manner prescribed in my previous post, not the draconian repression that you seem to favor. Basically, if people are educated and their lives are meaningful, they will exercise control. Most drug addicts lack ethical education and lead miserable, useless lives.


People don't need to be intoxicated, regardless of where it comes from (alcohol, marijuana, etc.).

I disagree. Controlled escapism is beneficial, if anything. I'd prefer not to call it "escapism," however. I prefer "leisure activity."

[OVERWATCH]

You really need to brush up on your comprehensive reading my friend. I make the comparison between them precisely because they're illegal, society deems the use of both in certain circumstances too dangerous for use, you ask me what they have in common, and I give you an answer. Nowhere did I mae a moral statement, and anyone with half a brain will see that when he reads my posts.

Don't assume to read something that isn't there, you'll make an ass out of you and me...

Cannabis was legal in the US until legislators deemed it to be too dangerous, because of the misinformation and hype contained in the utterly idiotic film 'reefer madness'.

[Starr]

But perhaps it should be addressed as to what causes people to want to take a "harlmess intoxicant" in the first place? People don't need to be intoxicated, regardless of where it comes from (alcohol, marijuana, etc.). This is the more important aspect of the debate, not the effects of marijuana itself, and not to turn this back into an ethical question, but a question of addressing societies problems in which individuals feel they have to use chemical substances to escape from reality or to make them feel good. That isn't something society should strive for at all.

People escape from reality in all kinds of ways, many do it every time they turn on the TV and tune in to their favorite fantasy world soap operas,etc. The problem is not escaping from reality on occasion in your leisure time when your life is pretty much in order and you just want to unwind and have a good time, with your friends, for example. The problem is the people who let their life revolve around their needed escapes from reality. And as I already said these type of people are going to find ways to escape from reality even if there are no drugs or alcohol present.

why does it seem like so many who have posted in this thread associate everyone who smokes pot with some brain dead moron giggling to him or herself in a corner and constantly getting high over and over again? That is not reality. It is funny, I bet some of you have never smoked pot or even been around someone who is "stoned" but yet, you think you know all about the type of people who smoke pot, how they live their life and how they act,etc. Too many Cheech and Chong movies?:222:

12 pages for a thread about marijuana. LOL:D