RyanO
Veteran
Thanks for making it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Thanks for making it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
riffz
Veteran
blakedacuber
Premium Member
me and my friend were talking about this the other day personnaly i can see a for and an against on the topic. imo it should be legalised because as bad as it is so is alcahol and cigarettes and just like everything else tht people enjoy drinking/eating/taking but should be illegal because otherwise we'll see 12yr old pot heads everywhere and i.e society will slowly lose its intelligence becaue it kills so many brain cells
Right. Because society is plagued by 12 year old drunks...
...and because there are no intelligent people who smoke weed.
Bahahahahaha.
E
Ethan Rosen
Guest
1. Studies have shown that marijuana use only has any noticeable long term effect on memory and intelligence in very heavy(five joints per week for 10 years) users. There has never been any evidence for a significant drop in brain cells or intelligence in casual users.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/7/887
2. Studies have repeatedly shown that under the current laws and regulations, it significantly easier for teens to obtain marijuana than alcohol. While the current alcohol laws in the US certainly don't stop underage drinking, they do a much better job at keeping alcohol away from children than marijuana laws do. The reasoning for this is really really simple. Liquor stores ask for ID, drug dealers don't. Legalizing and controlling cannabis is expected to do a better job keeping marijuana out of middle/high school than the current law does.
http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/
Edit: I will personally testify that in the High School I went to, it was a lot easier to get marijuana than it was to get alcohol, and I'm sure that many American teens on this forum would agree with this.
Logan
Alot of Azure
Whats marajewanna?
Rpotts
Veteran
Andreaillest
Premium Member
It's a drug. Drugs are bad, mmkay.
In all seriousness, I'm all for it. I'm very curious too see what would happen if marijuana were legalized and what kind of restrictions would be put on it.
I'm looking up polls for the prop and as of right now, a lot of people are turning it down. Strange. In April, majority voters said yes. I wonder what made them change their minds?
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Gotta agree with Ethan (legalizing marijuana = less violence, less gang activity, fewer users in jail, easier regulation, extra taxes), plus I don't believe it's ethical to prevent people from making what you believe is a bad decision by chasing after and arresting them, especially when the facts don't support your belief. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and nicotine, both to the user and to other people. I don't use it, but I do think it should be legal everywhere.
Unfortunately I have heard the federal government might essentially overturn this proposition (if passed) by prosecuting marijuana use as a *federal crime* in CA. Is this just a bad rumor?
Unfortunately I have heard the federal government might essentially overturn this proposition (if passed) by prosecuting marijuana use as a *federal crime* in CA. Is this just a bad rumor?
Well, something similar has happened here. The city of Denver has legalised possession of small amounts, but that didn't help any because state troopers still prosecute it as a crime under state law.
goatseforever
Regular
Marijuana is bad for you I know this from personal experience my brother used to be a straight A student and captain of the football team until one day he tried a marijuana cigarette and got addicted he started spending all his time and money on marijuana until one day he overdosed and died.
DavidWoner
The Punchmaster
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 3,936
- Location
- Kansas City, MO, USA
- WCA ID
- 2008WONE01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Yes, federal law supersedes state and municipal laws. That is why the DEA used to raid medicinal dispensaries in CA.
Even if prop 19 passes the federal government does have the power to punish it as a crime regardless.
Even if prop 19 passes the federal government does have the power to punish it as a crime regardless.
RyanO
Veteran
He didn't overdose on marijuana. Blaming the effects of another substance on prior marijuana use doesn't work. Most marijuana users don't end up in your brother's situation. Decriminalizing marijuana would actually help avoid these unfortunate situations. The most problematic aspect of marijuana use is having to deal with shady characters to procure it. If marijuana was available legally your brother likely wouldn't have got involved with the people who introduced him to harder drugs. (I realize that your post is probably a joke, but I decided to respond to it anyway)
Edward
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,497
- Location
- Your default internet browser
- WCA ID
- 2011KING01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
RyanO, you obviously don't really know goatseforever's style of posts 
iasimp1997
Veteran
Not this again...
RyanO
Veteran
Of course the post is a parody, but there are people who would make similar claims out of seriousness and felt it was worth responding to for that reason.
ChrisBird
Premium Member
So I didn't bother to read through the entire thread, and I don't plan on it unless you think there's something important that contradicts my view on it, in which case let me know.
My opinion, in short, is that it isn't the government's job to protect the people from themselves. Like George Carlin said "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."
Short, simple, elegant (as elegant as GC can be)
I don't know what the drug does, nor do I care at all. It isn't the government's job. If it kills the person taking it instantly, that's their fault. If it makes them feel like they are riding a unicorn through candy land, that's their gain/lose (depending on viewpoint), if it gives you a massive love of cheetos and lounging on the couch, go for it. The government shouldn't care.
Where I start to care is when what one does affects someone else. If someone gets in a car crash and kills them self only (and maybe a lamp post or tree) then that's their fault. But if they kill someone else, then is when the government has to step in and do something about it.
Hell, the government could even make some money off of taxing it, I don't care. Maybe it could help pay for some of the **** our wonderful presidentS have got us into.
Look at prohibition, failure. What makes this any different?
~Chris
My opinion, in short, is that it isn't the government's job to protect the people from themselves. Like George Carlin said "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."
Short, simple, elegant (as elegant as GC can be)
I don't know what the drug does, nor do I care at all. It isn't the government's job. If it kills the person taking it instantly, that's their fault. If it makes them feel like they are riding a unicorn through candy land, that's their gain/lose (depending on viewpoint), if it gives you a massive love of cheetos and lounging on the couch, go for it. The government shouldn't care.
Where I start to care is when what one does affects someone else. If someone gets in a car crash and kills them self only (and maybe a lamp post or tree) then that's their fault. But if they kill someone else, then is when the government has to step in and do something about it.
Hell, the government could even make some money off of taxing it, I don't care. Maybe it could help pay for some of the **** our wonderful presidentS have got us into.
Look at prohibition, failure. What makes this any different?
~Chris
Jukuren
Regular
if you smoke too much you will think your awesome cuz you just got a PB of 16 sec but later when your sober find out that you forgot about the 15 sec inspection timer count down so you really only got a 31 sec solve
Escher
Babby
I'd definitely describe that as 'regular', not 'very heavy'. In my experience very heavy is more like 4-5 per day - I'd be interested to see if there were any long term effects on memory or intelligence from use like that over a shorter period of time.
Ethan Rosen said:
Definitely my experience too, despite living in England where both the legal drinking age is younger and (therefore?)there is a generally more relaxed attitude about underage drinking from a lot of shop-owners (I didn't get asked for ID until I was over 18 and I was purchasing alcohol regularly for 3-4 years before that).
The drugs debate is a fascinating topic, both intellectually and also in laughing at how stupid generally intelligent people can be on a topic (i.e. most politicians).
I do hope for California's sake this gets passed.
